HIV Transmission
 - Question

Lord Black of Brentwood: To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards their target of eliminating HIV transmission in England by 2030.

Lord Black of Brentwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare an interest as a patron of the Terence Higgins Trust and vice-chair of the APPG on HIV.

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, the first HIV Action Plan monitoring and evaluation framework report shows that there is much to celebrate in the progress made since the publication of our HIV action plan in December 2021,
“with under 4,500 people living with undiagnosed HIV infection and extremely high levels of antiretroviral therapy coverage and viral suppression.”
We continue working with our key delivery partners to ensure we remain on track to meet our goals for 2030.

Lord Black of Brentwood: My Lords, I start with a tribute to the long-standing and deep commitment of Baroness Masham to tackling HIV and AIDS. We will miss her greatly.
The goal of eliminating new HIV transmissions by 2030 will be almost impossible to achieve unless we find the estimated 4,500 people living with undiagnosed HIV. One way of doing this is opt-out testing, whereby blood tests are routinely done in A&E departments checking for HIV and hepatitis B and C. Is my noble friend aware that a pilot scheme in four major cities has already produced 261 new HIV diagnoses in just 10 months? That saves lives, saves money and relieves pressure on the NHS. Given the huge public health and financial benefits, is it not time to expand opt-out HIV testing to all areas with a high HIV prevalence?

Lord Evans of Rainow: I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. I too would like to pay tribute to the late Baroness Masham, to the work she did with the APPG on HIV and AIDS, to her work as a disability campaigner and to her career as a paralympic athlete. She will be sadly missed.
I agree that the preliminary results of the pilot are promising. We will be considering the full evidence from the first year of the programme alongside the data on progress towards our ambition of ending new HIV transmissions in England by 2030, in order to  decide whether further to expand opt-out testing in areas with high HIV prevalence—that is, those with more than five cases per 1,000 people.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord said and I too pay tribute to Baroness Masham, who, right from the beginning, was a great and very effective campaigner on HIV and AIDS. One of her concerns was the unacceptable stigma suffered by those with HIV, in spite of all the medical advances made since the 1980s. Will the Government initiate a new drive to combat such stigma? They might even consider calling it “Sue Masham’s campaign”.

Lord Evans of Rainow: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his excellent question. I agree with him; it is an excellent idea and I will take it back to the department.

Lord Cashman: My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests, and in particular to my role as a patron of the Terrence Higgins Trust. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, opt-out HIV testing has played an important role in tracking down people diagnosed with HIV who are not receiving care. However, the Elton John AIDS Foundation’s social impact bond found that even more success was achieved through HIV clinics’ audit and recall system. Therefore, will the Minister take action to ensure that HIV clinics are specifically funded to undertake audit and recall, to ensure that everyone living with HIV is receiving the treatment they deserve?

Lord Evans of Rainow: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his excellent question. I absolutely agree that it is very important that we keep data for those with HIV. As part of the Government’s HIV action plan, NHS England has expanded opt-out HIV testing in accident and emergency departments in areas with high levels of HIV diagnosis and prevalence. It is a proven and effective way to identify new HIV cases, in line with the guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, as a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group, I know that Baroness Masham supported people with HIV long before it was popular to do so, and she never, ever gave up on them.
In its first 100 days, the opt-out scheme has cost £2.2 million and has saved the NHS between £6 million and £8 million. It has taken us 10 years to get to this very cost-effective intervention. Do the Government now understand that there is a robust case for rolling this out not just to very high prevalence areas but to high prevalence areas? In very high prevalence areas, the length of stay of a newly diagnosed patient has been reduced from 29 days to 2.5 days. All round, there are savings to be made for the NHS by doing this.

Lord Evans of Rainow: The noble Baroness makes a very good point. We are considering the full evidence from the first year of opt-out testing, alongside the data on progress towards our ambition of ending  new HIV transmissions in England by 2030, in order to decide whether to expand this programme to areas other than those with high HIV prevalence. We will also share the findings from the opt-out testing programme with local health systems to inform local decisions on expansion.

Baroness Manzoor: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the drug PrEP is very effective in preventing HIV transmissions. What are the Government therefore doing to ensure that it is available to those who need it, and when will it be available? I too fully support the opt-out clinics; they are making significant savings and I urge the Government to expand them across the country.

Lord Evans of Rainow: I thank my noble friend for that question. We know that the HIV prevention drug PrEP is extremely effective at preventing HIV transmission. We are developing a plan to improve access to PrEP for key groups and in settings outside of sexual health services, as part of our HIV action plan commitments.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, I too pay tribute to the late Baroness Masham; she will be much missed for her work and effectiveness not just in this area but in many others too.
Following on from the Minister’s answer to the last question, I think we all acknowledge that the great game- changer in the prevention of HIV is the cheap and simple drug PrEP. However, there is a major problem with prescription, particularly for those trying to access it for the first time. What assessment have the Government made of the incidence of HIV because people cannot easily access PrEP? Will the Minister look at extending the prescribing of HIV prevention drugs beyond hard-pressed sexual health clinics to other sources, including GPs and community pharmacies?

Lord Evans of Rainow: The noble Baroness raises a very important point. PrEP is now being commissioned as a routine service, and PrEP funding has been fully included within the public health grant, which will benefit over 80,000 people at the highest risk of HIV. But I do agree that having access through GPs would be helpful.

Lord Sandhurst: My Lords, what is the Department for Education doing or planning to do in schools by way of sex and relationship education to prevent young people getting HIV and sexually transmitted diseases?

Lord Evans of Rainow: I thank my noble friend for that question. The Prime Minister is also concerned about reports that inappropriate materials are being used to teach sex and relationship education to young people. As the Prime Minister has set out, we are clear that the materials used must be factual and age appropriate. We have brought forward a review of the statutory guidance and will conduct a consultation on it later this year, as planned and in line with the usual  process. The review will look at whether we should place clearer limits on the content being taught to children, depending on their age.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, there has been a significant and welcome increase in the number of people ordering HIV tests online, but when they go to the freetesting.hiv website they find that tests are available in only a limited number of local authority areas. Will the Minister look at the potential benefits of making this free testing service available in more parts of the country?

Lord Evans of Rainow: I thank the noble Lord for that question. I was unaware that it was not universally available to all health authorities in the UK, but I shall certainly pass that question on.

Lord Lexden: To return to the issue of PrEP, two years after its regular commissioning, do not too many people face long waiting lists or remain unaware of the tremendous benefit they could get from this great drug?

Lord Evans of Rainow: I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. If he knows of any specific cases, I shall certainly look into that.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, the National AIDS Trust found that nearly 100,000 people in the UK received HIV care in 2019. The late Baroness Masham rightly highlighted the problem of stigma. Mental health services are disproportionately greatly required for patients with HIV, and those with advanced HIV need expert palliative care. What are the Government doing to ensure that that population get the palliative care and mental health services they need? Not everybody is living easily and well, despite the treatment regimes we have.

Lord Evans of Rainow: I thank the noble Baroness —and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler—for making the point about stigma. We all recall what the stigma was like in the 1980s and 1990s; hopefully, the situation is much better. I hope and believe that that group receives the palliative care it rightly should. If the noble Baroness knows of any individual cases, she should get back to me.

Devolved Budget for Wales: Inflation
 - Question

Baroness Wilcox of Newport: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact of inflation on the devolved budget for Wales.

Baroness Penn: The Welsh Government are well funded to meet their responsibilities. The 2021 spending review  set the largest annual settlement in real terms since the devolution Act. The settlement is still growing in real terms over the spending review period. The Welsh Government also have their own tax and borrowing powers. In addition, the UK Government are supporting households UK-wide with the cost of living, supporting businesses, charities and the public sector with their energy bills.

Baroness Wilcox of Newport: I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I need to make her and the House aware that Wales is facing a perfect storm of pressures, with austerity, the pandemic, the cost of living and high inflation. Our economy and public services in Wales are very fragile. Simply put, it seems that the UK Government have abandoned Wales to meet these pressures alone. With the funding from last autumn’s Budget Statement, inflation means that our settlement is still worth up to £3 billion less in real terms and £1 billion less next year. What can the people of Wales hope for from the UK Government’s latest Budget today—more of less?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, I reiterate to the noble Baroness—and to the Welsh Government—that the Welsh Government, in the 2021 spending review, received the largest annual settlement in real terms since the devolution Act. I also say to the noble Baroness that, with the inflation that we are facing across the country, the budget is still growing in real terms across the spending review period. The Autumn Statement included additional funding for Wales, and today’s Budget means that the Welsh Government will receive an additional £180 million through the Barnett formula across the next two years. Measures that we are taking across the UK in today’s Budget will benefit Wales: the extension of the energy price guarantee; the freezing of fuel duty; and the doubling of draught relief, which will support more than 2,000 pubs and bars in Wales. There is much to be welcomed in today’s Budget for Wales.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, is it not the case that Wales has been inadequately funded under both Labour and Conservative Governments? Many reports have been debated in your Lordships’ House. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, saying how inadequate it is. The Barnett formula is a fraud; it seriously underfunds Wales. Furthermore, Wales in any case suffers from long-term problems in matters such as housing and education, which relate to the fact that Wales is bracketed with England—a bad idea in the first place. We need something much more substantial than what were—I agree with the noble Baroness—some beneficial points today. Otherwise, Wales will continue to lag behind.

Baroness Penn: I believe the noble Lord was referring to the Lords Committee on the Barnett Formula in 2009, which called for a review of that, including implementing a needs-based factor. That is exactly what we have done through implementing the recommendations of the Holtham commission, which found that the Welsh Government should have at least 15% more per person than equivalent UK government  spending to reflect the Welsh Government’s additional needs. In fact, that figure is 20% more per person in the 2021 spending review, which is about £1 million more each year than the Holtham commission indicated and which the Welsh Government agreed was fair for Wales relative to England.

Lord Wigley: My Lords, did not the Holtham commission have as one of its three points the need to do away with the Barnett formula as it exists and to replace it with a needs-based formula? That has not been accepted by the Government. Will they please think again?

Baroness Penn: Instead of removing the Barnett formula, we have amended it to include that needs-based factor. The Barnett formula is simple and efficient and provides a clear and certain outcome. With the addition of the needs-based factor, the people of Wales have the guarantee that funding based on their own needs will not fall below the assessment of where those needs are.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere: My Lords, inflation did not come as some act of God; it was caused by paying people for two years to stay home and printing money to cover the difference. Is it not odd that those who called for the longest and strictest lockdown, including not least Labour’s Administration in Wales, now complain about it and demand more of the medicine that sickened the patient? Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that no one ever tamed inflation by spending more money?

Baroness Penn: My noble friend is absolutely right about the importance of reducing inflation. That is why it is so important that the measures we have taken in the Autumn Statement and today’s Budget mean that, when we get to the end of this year, inflation is more than halved, meeting one of the Prime Minister’s five pledges to the United Kingdom.

Baroness Humphreys: My Lords, last month the British Dental Association warned that NHS dentistry in Wales could disappear. In Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan alone, around 15,000 people are on two-year waiting lists, more than 8,000 of whom are children. Given the financial constraints already referred to and the imposition by the UK Government of a 3.5% cap on the dentists’ remuneration body—leading to 13% saying that they would hand back their contracts this year—how can the Welsh Government run an efficient and viable service?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, I believe that is a question for the Welsh Government, as it is a devolved area. On funding, I just go back to the point that the Welsh Government have had a record settlement. At the Autumn Statement we put increased money into the NHS and social care, which of course would have flowed through to Wales as a result of the Barnett consequentials. What the Welsh Government choose to do with that money is a matter for the Welsh Government.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, is it not extremely difficult to secure throughout our country the high level of prosperity that we would all like to see? My noble colleagues from Northern Ireland will testify to that.

Baroness Penn: It is a difficult thing, but one that this Government are committed to. That is why I am so pleased to see that as a result of the measures announced in this Budget today, we have seen the OBR adjust its growth forecasts upwards by the largest amount based on supply-side reforms since its establishment in 2010.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the Barnett formula in terms of great approval. How does one reconcile that with the view of Lord Barnett about his own formula when he said he was deeply ashamed of it? Why are the Government not equally ashamed?

Baroness Penn: My Lords, I believe we are having a whole debate this evening about the Barnett formula. I simply say to the noble Lord that, yes, all allocation systems have strengths and weaknesses. The reforms I spoke about earlier in this Question, introducing a needs-based factor into the Barnett formula for Wales, have addressed one of the major weaknesses that was identified.

Rugby: 200th Anniversary
 - Question

Lord Addington: To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the game of rugby football; and what plans they have to support rugby as a grassroots game.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and remind the House of my ongoing interests in rugby football.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, His Majesty’s Government are delighted that rugby football is celebrating its bicentenary this year. Last month, the Minister for Sport was thrilled to attend some of the celebrations that took place at Rugby School. Rugby continues to be one of our most widely participated-in sports and we are committed to supporting it at all levels. We also look forward to England hosting the women’s World Cup in 2025.

Lord Addington: My Lords, once we have got over the celebration of the women’s World Cup, which is a good thing, does the Minister agree that grass-roots sport, that usually creates its own pitches and facilities without government help—it does it itself—is in real trouble, thanks to Covid cutting down the number of  players, its primary income source, and the fact that energy costs and inflation are knocking on the doors of a smaller base to create the finances to keep it going? Will the Government assure us that they will look positively at making sure that this voluntary group can carry on delivering the benefits it does in both mental and physical health?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Voluntary groups indeed do a great deal of good work to support the sport in all communities, but the noble Lord is not right to say the Government are not doing their part too. We have committed to delivering the pitches and sports facilities that every community needs and are investing £230 million between 2021 and 2025 on top of an existing £18 million annual commitment in England, so the Government are supporting those groups, as we did during the pandemic.

Earl of Devon: My Lords, noting that I am a former rugby player who suffered my own fair share of concussions, may I ask what steps the Government are taking both to protect young players from life-changing injuries and to protect local clubs from bankruptcy due to claims by former players?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: The safety, well-being and welfare of everyone taking part in sport, whatever the sport, are paramount and the Government are leading work on brain injuries across sports, specifically looking at concussion. We are working with interested parties across the sporting world to develop a single set of shared concussion guidelines, which will be published in the near future.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, since the day after tomorrow is St Patrick’s Day, will the Minister join me in a fit of magnanimity and wish the Irish rugby team every success in their bid to get the Grand Slam next weekend?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: The noble Lord tempts me to send wishes against my own home nation. I send good wishes to all the teams from the British Isles—and, indeed, the other two.

Lord Hayward: My Lords, when one thinks of Nelson Mandela wearing a Springbok shirt in the World Cup final in 1995 or the England rugby team playing in Dublin during the Troubles, one realises that rugby is a game that can inspire. When one thinks of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, playing rugby, one realises that the game can amaze.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Hayward: Does my noble friend recognise that next month’s Union Cup, the Europe-wide tournament for lesbian and gay teams, will be the largest sporting event in the West Midlands this year? It has inspired and encouraged large numbers of people in diverse communities to take up the game of rugby.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I completely agree with what my noble friend says about the power of this sport to inspire people around the world. I pay tribute to his long-standing championing of it, as both a referee and a founder and vice-president of the Kings Cross Steelers, who I believe have been very successful in the Union Cup which he mentioned. I am glad to hear that that will take place in Birmingham later this year and I send good wishes to everyone taking part.

Lord Pannick: Does the Minister agree that it is no surprise that it was at an independent school that William Webb Ellis innovated by picking up the ball and running with it? Will the Government do all they can to promote independent schools in this country while at the same time improving the standards of education in state schools so that diversity of approach in sport and elsewhere is maintained?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: As a former comprehensive school boy, I must stand up for schools of all sorts, including the independent and private sector. Of course, there were not as many state schools in 1823 at which to innovate in quite the same way, but through our support for schools opening up their sporting facilities, whatever sector they are in, we are keen to make sure that they continue to inspire people to take part in sport.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, we are entering a new era for women’s rugby, with many opportunities to grow the game. How will the Government use forthcoming events, including the 2025 women’s Rugby World Cup, which the Minister referred to earlier, to advance the participation of women and girls not just in rugby and other sports but in general fitness and health improvement?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Happily, we have seen in recent years the successes of women’s professional sports teams inspiring women and girls of all ages to be more active and take up sport. We are determined to get more women and girls playing sport and want to see women in leadership positions across it, whether that is in playing or coaching, on the medical and support side or at board level.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will make a virtual contribution.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, Lady Masham, who is so sorely missed, won gold in swimming and silver in wheelchair table tennis at a number of Paralympic Games. She was a passionate champion of disabled sports at all levels. While there is a good range of grass-roots sports for the disabled, including wheelchair rugby, seated tai chi, disabled angling, para dance and all-ability sports such as sitting volleyball, their spread by locality is very patchy, meaning that many disabled people have no chance to play. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that all disabled people can access grass-roots sports in their area?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: That question gives me the opportunity to add my tributes to the late noble Baroness, the first Paralympian in your Lordships’ House. I am pleased to say that Sport England has provided more than £800,000 of support for wheelchair rugby since 2019 to encourage people of all backgrounds and abilities to get involved. We are supporting communities to have pitches and sports facilities to ensure that people of all backgrounds and abilities can take part in sports.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: My Lords, has the Minister’s department taken any opportunity to discuss with the rugby authorities the provision of medical cover at all levels, including grass-roots rugby?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My right honourable friend the Sports Minister meets the sporting bodies regularly and discusses these matters. I will take that point back and discuss it with him.

Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that in the past nine months two Premiership rugby clubs have collapsed. He will also be aware that several Premiership clubs and some professional clubs in the Championship, the second division, are under severe financial stress. What is the Government’s view of the future of rugby given these financial stresses? Should the department undertake a review of the organisation of the professional game to ensure its successful continuity?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: The Government provided £600 million of support through the sport survival package during the pandemic. We are in close communication with the Premiership Rugby league and the Rugby Football Union on their plans to manage the issues still facing the sport and their longer-term sustainability as we emerge from the pandemic. My right honourable friend the Sports Minister regularly engages with them and will continue to do so.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, is not the ever-growing partnership between independent and state schools in sport one of the most encouraging features of education at the moment? I declare my interest as president of the Independent Schools Association. How about assembling two teams composed of some of the leading lights in rugby from independent and state schools, combining the best from both schools, and getting the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to referee?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: It sounds a very good idea; I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree. We certainly want to inspire people of all backgrounds to take part in this sport.

Lord Geddes: Is my noble friend aware of the tablet on Doctors Wall at Rugby which reads:
“This stone commemorates the exploit of William Webb Ellis who with a fine disregard for the rules of football as played in his time first took the ball in his arms and ran with it”,
thus creating the present-day game?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My noble friend’s question is a very good one indeed to see out our 10 minutes, and a good opportunity to be grateful for the innovation of William Webb Ellis and the two centuries of enjoyment that he has given people all over the world.

Nitrous Oxide
 - Question

Lord Young of Norwood Green: To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs report Nitrous oxide: updated harms assessment, published on 6 March, what steps they are taking to prevent the sale of large canisters of nitrous oxide to the public.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, it is an offence under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 to supply or offer to supply oxide canisters of any size, knowingly or recklessly, for its psychoactive effect. I would expect police to use all available powers to crack down swiftly on illegal sellers. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs identified concerning anecdotal evidence of an increased prevalence of large canisters since 2015. We are now carefully considering its recommendations and will respond shortly.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, I must confess I am somewhat disappointed by the response from the Minister. I have here the type of canister that is the challenge that we face. I do not know if you have noticed, but these canisters now litter the countryside everywhere. This one is empty—I did not indulge—but they are a serious problem. They are meant for industrial use, but are also a serious health hazard. There is no limit to the amount that can be ingested with them, unlike the small silver ones, known as whippits, that you see around; they are really meant for inflating party balloons but are also used to get a high. You can buy the large canisters on Amazon, no questions asked. Will the Minister take urgent action to ensure that these canisters are sold to licensed traders only, and take steps to discuss with Amazon the question of putting a deposit on the canisters so that they are returned? I would like the opportunity to meet him to discuss what further action could be taken.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: The noble Lord is right that the availability of larger tanks—I thank him for his example of one—is believed to have led to an increase in the amount and frequency of nitrous oxide use. In November 2018, the Government published a review of the Psychoactive Substances Act, which provided insights into the way the Act has affected the sale and use of potentially harmful new psychoactive substances. The review concluded that the open sale of new substances had largely been eliminated. After the 2016 Act came into force, 332 retailers across the United Kingdom were identified as having either closed down or stopped selling. However, I take his points on  board; I am happy to meet him and will certainly take this back to the department. I should say that the report was published only on 6 March.

Baroness Bull: My Lords, the review to which the Minister has just referred went on to say that academic and Europol evidence identified the UK as one of the leading dark-web sources of these illegal substances. What have the Government done since that review to address this and close down these too-easy-to-access sources of highly dangerous substances?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I take the noble Baroness’s point. As I say, the recommendations from the report are still under consideration. As I have just outlined, considerable work has been done on the retail of these canisters, but I will come back when I have more to tell her, based on the review of the report.

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, the advisory council is obviously vital; developments in this area are very speedy, so it enables the law and government decision-making to keep pace. However, the speed of development is glacial compared to the speed of change on the internet, and it is not just substances that we ingest that cause harm but images. Could my noble friend the Minister please take the opportunity to turn to his noble friend next to him from the DCMS, to advise him that somewhere in the Online Safety Bill we need clauses to future-proof so that, as things develop on the internet, the Government have the information quickly to hand so that we can put legislation or decisions in place to stop that harm?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My noble friend Lady Berridge is right; obviously we need to future-proof legislation—and I note that my noble friend next to me was nodding sagely during her question.

Lord German: My Lords, the advisory committee may not have given the advice that the Government were seeking in this matter, but I hope that the Government will look very seriously at the second issue which the advisory committee reported on, which was education. Given that there are now many medical professionals, both clinical and in research, who place the risks of nitrous oxide on a par with or greater than alcohol abuse, what steps do the Government propose to take to inform the public—particularly young people —of the consequences of nitrous oxide abuse, using their experience of dealing with alcohol abuse?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: The noble Lord raises a good point. A free drugs advice service from the Government, FRANK, contains information on nitrous oxide and the harm associated with taking it, such as dizziness, vitamin B12 deficiency, and nerve damage that can result from heavy long-term use. FRANK receives over half a million visits a month, with high levels of awareness and trust. User research commissioned by Public Health England has shown that 83% of 18 to 24 year-old adults are aware of this site, and that 85% of its users trust the site to provide reliable information about drugs.

Lord Bellingham: My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lady Berridge, I say that it is a question not just of the ready availability of these online vendors who are working very hard to sell nitrous oxide, but of campaigns by social media which are backing that up. Does the Minister agree that there is now an argument for moving control from the Psychotic Substances Act 2016 to the Misuse of Drugs Act?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My noble friend makes a very good point but the advisory council did not actually recommend that. It said that nitrous oxide should be kept subject to the provisions in the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. However, as I said earlier, we are considering all the recommendations of the report, and the Home Secretary has a duty to consider advice on whether to pursue control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, does the Minister accept that nitrous oxide is a gateway drug and may well lead to young people in particular moving on to other drugs which are even more harmful? Does he also accept that the courts and the police force find it difficult to deal with the multitude of available drugs, which are constantly changing, so there needs to be huge vigilance to try to understand the range of drugs available to our young people?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I do not have any personal knowledge of whether it is a gateway drug, but the evidence that I have seen certainly suggests that to be the case; I believe it is the third most common drug in England and Wales after cannabis and cocaine, so I suspect that the noble Lord is right. As regards vigilance, I agree; obviously we have a long-term drugs strategy to take the challenge of drug misuse very seriously. It is a 10-year strategy, significant funds have been dedicated towards it, and it includes investing significant amounts of money in an ambitious programme of drug treatment and recovery.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can the Minister explain the legality of selling nitrous oxide in these large canisters? Are they illegal and, if so, has anybody been convicted of selling them? If they are not, is the Minister saying, “It is all right. We will welcome it for the moment and have a policy later”?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I certainly do not think I have said that, my Lords. There are legitimate uses for nitrous oxide, and we should bear that in mind. It is used in medicine, dentistry and—this may surprise noble Lords—as a propellant for whipped cream canisters. Those who supply nitrous oxide, knowingly or recklessly, where it will be used for its psychoactive effect commit an offence under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, regardless of the age of the buyer. That can include a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, and people are convicted under the Psychoactive Substances Act. There is no complacency here.

OFCOM (Duty regarding Prevention of Serious Self-harm and Suicide) Bill [HL]
 - Order of Commitment

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Moved by Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
That the order of commitment be discharged.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Motion agreed.

Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023
 - Motion to Approve

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: Moved by Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Regulations laid before the House on 21 and 23 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 32nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and 29th Report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instruments). Considered in Grand Committee on 14 March.

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: My Lords, with the leave of the House and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Callanan, I beg to move the Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Motion agreed.

BBC: Government Role in Impartiality
 - Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Tuesday 14 March.
“The BBC is a world-class broadcaster, a creative engine and a cultural institution producing some of the best television and radio in the world. The impartiality of the BBC, as a publicly funded broadcaster, goes to the heart of the contract between the corporation and all the licence fee payers whom it serves. That is why the royal charter, which is the constitutional basis of the BBC—along with the underpinning framework agreement—enshrines the need for the BBC to be impartial in both its mission and its public purposes.
The BBC’s mission and public purposes, as set out in the charter, require it to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain, helping people to understand and engage with the world around them. The BBC’s first public purpose is to provide duly accurate and impartial news and information to help people to understand and engage with the world around them. It must also represent and serve the diverse communities of all the United Kingdom’s nations and regions. Both the charter and the framework agreement also explicitly guarantee the independence of the BBC. As such, the Government have no say in the BBC’s operational or editorial day-to-day decisions or staffing matters, including as they relate to the application of the requirement for impartiality.
The Government stand fully behind the requirements of the royal charter. We are clear that the BBC must truly reflect the nation and guard its impartiality in all of its output. The BBC’s director-general has repeatedly said that the corporation’s impartiality is a priority for him and must be protected. We welcome that the BBC accepted the findings and recommendations of the Serota review and is committed to reform through its 10-point impartiality and editorial standards action plan. It is Ofcom, established by the Government as the independent regulator of the BBC in 2017, that is responsible for holding broadcasters including the BBC to account on the impartiality of their news and current affairs coverage, against the Broadcasting Code under the Communications Act 2003.
In November last year, Ofcom published its annual review of the BBC. It found the BBC’s impartiality to be a key area of concern among audiences and one where they consistently rate BBC news less favourably for trust and accuracy. Ofcom stated that addressing audience perceptions on this matter is challenging, and the regulator recognises that this is a complex area. It will continue to monitor the performance of the BBC and has urged the BBC not to lose momentum in its efforts to address this issue. It remains a priority for the Government to ensure that Ofcom delivers an effective and proportionate regulatory framework that holds the BBC to account while maintaining its creative freedom and operational independence.
In May 2022, the Government launched the mid-term review. This is a new mechanism established by the current charter, focusing on the governance and regulatory arrangements for the BBC, given the reforms that were introduced when the charter was granted. One area of focus in the MTR is impartiality, and it will assess the efficacy of the governance mechanisms and Ofcom’s regulation in ensuring that the BBC meets the high standards that licence fee payers expect of it. It is also an important milestone in our road map for BBC reform, and work is well under way. The charter specifies that the review must take place between 2022 and 2024, and we will publish our findings and conclusions in due course.
The BBC is respected globally. It reaches hundreds of millions of people across the world every week. No other country in the world has anything quite like it. We have been clear that the BBC must place a firm   emphasis on accuracy, impartiality and diversity of opinion. It can never be the BBC’s role to judge, or appear to judge, the diverse values of the people from across the country it serves. In the era of fake news, public service broadcasting and a free press have never been more important, and the BBC has been and should be a beacon that sets standards to which others can aspire.”

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government claim not to have interfered in the BBC’s affairs this past weekend. We take that at face value, even if Downing Street had no problem with Conservative MPs applying their own pressure on the BBC. According to leaked messages, it is clear Downing Street has interfered in the corporation’s news output, both during the pandemic and at the beginning of the Ukraine conflict. Is not the Minister concerned by this quote from a BBC insider, who said:
“Particularly on the website, our headlines have been determined by calls from Downing Street on a very regular basis.”
Does not this bring us once again to the wholly inappropriate relationship between Boris Johnson and the man he appointed as chair of the BBC, and does not this tell us everything we need to know about the Government’s paper-thin commitment to the notion of impartiality?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that political parties, whether in government or in opposition, regularly contact the BBC and other broadcasters in relation to what they broadcast as part and parcel of the news content they provide, but the public service broadcasters do a brilliant job presenting impartial news which continues to inform people, whatever their political views or persuasions. The impartiality of the BBC as a publicly funded broadcaster goes to the very heart of the contract between it and the licence fee payers it serves. It is set out in the royal charter, along with the underpinning framework agreement, and the Government fully support the BBC in the action it takes to uphold that impartiality.

Baroness Wheatcroft: My Lords, in many organisations, the chairman’s role includes that of being the chief brand ambassador. This week, the BBC has found itself under siege, but the chairman has been totally absent and has not said a word. If it looks like a lame duck and fails to quack, it appears to be a lame duck chairman—and, at the moment, a lame duck chairman who is under investigation on two counts, having been severely damaged by the Commons Select Committee. Does the Minister agree that, even if the chairman does not feel he should stand down, he should at least be suspended while these inquiries go on?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, the BBC’s charter makes it clear that it is the director-general, as editor-in-chief of the corporation, who has final responsibility for individual decisions on the BBC’s editorial matters, not the chairman of the board  or other board members; that is what has been discussed quite widely in the past few days. The director-general of the BBC has made this clear, saying on Monday that he is
“absolutely not affected by pressure from one party or the other.”
The corporation is upholding its impartiality, as it absolutely should. The Commissioner for Public Appointments, as he is entitled to do, announced a review of the appointment process for the chairman of the BBC; we await the outcome of that review.

Lord McNally: My Lords—

Lord Robathan: My Lords, does the House not remember those halcyon days—oh, okay. If you want.

Lord McNally: What courtesy from the Conservative Benches—there is hope for them yet. It is our turn; that is why I am standing.
My Lords, the Minister of State, Julia Lopez, made my heart leap yesterday when she told the Commons:
“The BBC is a world-class broadcaster, a creative engine and a cultural institution producing some of the best television and radio in the world.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/23; col. 714.]
She slightly rolled back on that later when addressing some of her Neanderthals by reassuring them that the mid-term review in 2024 would deal with some of their concerns. I wonder: will that mid-term review be just a one-way street of more squeezes on the BBC or will other things be considered, such as the decision to do away with the UK BBC News service? Will it consider the long-term impact of the campaigns run by the Murdoch press, Associated Newspapers and Express Newspapers, all tax-exile owned and all with a massive self-interest in diminishing and attacking the BBC? Will the mid-term review be a genuine two-way street, bringing things back as well as getting rid of them?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: The terms of reference for the mid-term review were published in May last year, so the noble Lord can consult them. As set out in the charter, the review will consider the governance and regulation of the corporation. As agreed with the BBC, Ofcom and the devolved Administrations, it will consider how the governance and regulation of the BBC delivers the requirement on impartiality in the charter. I hope also to make the noble Lord’s heart glow by associating myself with my honourable friend’s comments.

Lord Robathan: My Lords, does the House not remember those halcyon days of the Blair premiership when not only was Gavyn Davies, a Labour donor, made chairman of the BBC but Greg Dyke, another Labour donor, was made director-general of the BBC? I do not remember everybody talking about impartiality then. Can my noble friend the Minister not only remember that but answer me this: does he think that £1.35 million is worth spending on a single presenter who used to be very good at football?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I remember those days. As noble Lords would expect, an organisation as august and that has been around for as long as the  BBC draws people from all sorts of backgrounds, political or otherwise. Long may it continue to do so and long may such people continue to discharge their responsibilities impartially. How the BBC decides to spend the money that it gets from licence fee payers is for it to decide and justify to those licence fee payers.

Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, political pressure on the BBC is not new. Mr Wilson, Mrs Thatcher and Mr Blair all had their problems with the BBC. As in this place, those in power there face scrutiny, but does the Minister accept two things that are now in play when it comes to impartiality: first, the long-term commodification of the BBC, which has eroded its funding and its service commitment to the nations and regions at home, to religion, to culture, to education and to our mutual flourishing through both the expression of heightened values and entertainment; and, secondly, the fact that impartiality is about fairness? Who determines what is impartial? It should not be the Government.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: As I say, the process for the BBC’s impartiality is set out in its royal charter and framework agreement; it is for the BBC to discharge that. The Government also made Ofcom the independent regulator of the BBC in 2017, with a further independent body responsible in that process. The BBC will receive at least £3.8 billion for the remainder of the current charter period in annual licence fee funding. On their part, the Government have also provided further funding, such as the announcement this week of a £20 million uplift for the BBC World Service in recognition of the crucial role that it plays. The right reverend Prelate is right to point to the many important roles that the corporation plays in our national—and, indeed, the world’s international —life.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords—

Lord Berkeley of Knighton: My Lords—

Lord Harlech: My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, I declare an interest as an ex-governor of the BBC. I echo the view that was expressed about Gary Lineker and his salary. He is like many people who have been in that position in the past and who believe that they are irreplaceable. Your Lordships will remember that Jeremy Clarkson and the “Top Gear” team thought that they were irreplaceable; needless to say, “Top Gear” thrives just as successfully without them. I have conveyed in writing to the director-general my advice to get rid of the old boys’ club of Lineker, Shearer and Wright, and replace it with at least one or two women, which we could probably do for half the price, and they would do twice as good a job.

Baroness Chakrabarti: Half the price?

Lord Young of Norwood Green: If the noble Baroness could just pause to hear the end of my contribution, I do not believe that we should be paying those kinds of prices for presenters. If the BBC did this—

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The noble Lord is talking rubbish.

Noble Lords: Question!

Lord Young of Norwood Green: It is so kind of my noble friends to assist me. If the BBC did that, we could save the BBC Singers, which provides a really important contribution to the country.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Decisions about salaries are for the BBC, but the Government have urged transparency over those payments, so that licence fee payers are aware of how their money is being spent.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton: My Lords, I declare my interest as a freelance composer and broadcaster for the BBC, although at a somewhat less august salary level than Mr Gary Lineker. The Minister would probably accept, as we all do, that there is a difference between not making political observations in programmes that you are aligned to and being free to express your conscience when you are talking about something which has nothing to do with sport or, in my case, music. Does he understand that musicians feel rather beleaguered, given the Arts Council England cuts, coupled with this own goal of scrapping the BBC Singers, the only professional group of its sort in this country?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Questions about how people who work for the BBC use social media and how their activity adheres to the BBC’s social media guidelines are for the corporation to determine. The noble Lord, who does not tweet, I think, and certainly not in a way that causes any controversy, is right to draw attention to the decisions about the BBC Singers and BBC orchestras, although again those decisions are for the BBC to set out and justify to licence fee payers, in the context of how it spends their money. The noble Lord referred to Arts Council England cuts. I remind him that the amount of money being dispensed by Arts Council England in the new portfolio is larger than in the previous one, and classical music accounts for a great deal of its musical output. However, he is right to draw your Lordships’ attention to this important issue.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
 - Committee (5th Day)

Relevant documents: 24th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 12th Report from the Constitution Committee. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Legislative Consent sought.

Lord Duncan of Springbank: My Lords, I preface my remarks to the hearty few who are left behind by saying that the Marshalled List is fiddly today, so bear with me if I go off the rails. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, will be taking part remotely. I remind the Committee that, unless they are leading a group, remote speakers speak first after the mover of the lead amendment  in a group and may therefore speak to other amendments in the group ahead of the Members who have tabled them.

  
Clause 32: Exercise of fire and rescue functions
  

Debate on whether Clause 32 should stand part of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
The notice to oppose Clause 32 standing part of the bill would remove provisions allowing chief constables to exercise certain fire and rescue functions.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I begin by declaring my policing interests, which are set out in the register. The stand part propositions on Clauses 32 to 38 all highlight to your Lordships the ridiculous state that North Yorkshire will be in should these clauses remain in the Bill. For the sake of the Deputy Chairman of Committees, I say that at this point I will not be pressing these propositions.
At Second Reading, I raised the question of the split of responsibilities between the mayor and the chief constable. I have done a bit of digging since then. I was concerned that the chief constables would be given responsibility for the fire and rescue service, alongside their duty to manage their forces. I am very grateful to the Minister for addressing this in her letter to us of 27 January. However, I wonder whether the Government have fully understood or considered the dilemma that the police, fire and crime commissioner will have if the single-employer model is used in North Yorkshire, which is destined to become a unique—as far as I am aware—mayoral combined authority or MCA.
The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, in which the policing protocol sets out the independent direction and control of a chief constable, would be in conflict with the employee status of the current fire chief model. How do the Government propose to change this to have the same independent direction and control if this model is chosen?
The staff of the fire service are employees, employed in an entirely different way from police officers, who are servants of the Crown. Police staff are employed on different terms and conditions of work again, albeit under the direction and control of the chief constable. Of course, fire staff have different pay structures and a completely different pay negotiation mechanism. I leave to your Lordships’ imagination the chaos that would be caused should these two entirely different organisations be merged into one. There would be equal-pay concerns and pay rise inequality unless the staff were transferred into one organisation, which would have to be done if you used the single-employer model, in order to resolve these complexities.
However, in such a model, the legislation would still have to afford independent direction and control of the fire service to the chief officer for it to be viable for the practical, day-to-day delivery of the service. The outcry from police officers, who may be offered a meagre pay rise when fire officers are offered more, because of the different way their employment models are constructed even though they work alongside each other, will be a recipe for disaster.
At Second Reading, I was anxious to point out that the chief constable, certainly in North Yorkshire, will have this unique MCA and should not have to take on the responsibility of all the fire officers and staff—around 900 persons. This is not what chief police officers are about. In reality, it would fall to the chief constable, as the chief officer. What a conundrum for her; I am not sure that she has the capacity to do that. I am not sure that the chief constable—any chief constable—faced with the single-employer model would want to be responsible for that.
Unfortunately, when the first of our three PCCs in North Yorkshire decided to take on to herself the responsibilities for overseeing the fire service as well as the police, she cannot possibly have envisioned the mess that would ensue if a combined authority—now a mayoral combined authority—were to come under a mayor’s jurisdiction. Nor do I think that any incoming mayor in my county would relish being immediately responsible for 900 fire personnel. What a muddle.
There are significant problems too with data protection and vetting standards when sharing IT systems, which would have to be overcome. We have already seen in our recent North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service’s HMICFRS report that there are concerns surrounding a shared support function that is in place in North Yorkshire. HMICFRS commented that:
“It needs to make sure collaboration activities, such as those with police”
are effective and “provide value for money”. It currently shares some business services with North Yorkshire police and the office of the police, fire and crime commissioner, but there is little evidence to show its benefits to the service.
These problems were well highlighted by both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the National Fire Chiefs Council back in 2018, when it was proposed that PCCs could take on the responsibilities of fire authorities too. The PCC for North Yorkshire at that time decided to grow her empire and take on the task. It was proved to be wrong then and it is certainly being proved to be wrong now. In the recent HMICFRS report cited above, the inspectorate stated that the fire and rescue service in North Yorkshire had actually deteriorated during this time. I do not know how many other PCCs have taken on the role—most, I believe, just stick to their policing role—but we still have this problem in North Yorkshire.
These problems have not been thought through properly at all, which is why I was so keen at Second Reading to address them. There are enough problems in policing today without them having to take on fire services as well. A number of forces apart from the Met are in special measures, so how would they be able to take on the added responsibility of the fire service? This needs to be clarified, and quickly, before even more of a mess is allowed to get into legislation around policing.
I think that we need to take out the whole section of the Bill about chief constables being responsible for fire authorities, certainly unless and until this quirk in the proposed legislation would see the North Yorkshire problem solved. As I said at the beginning, I will not press for their removal at this stage, but I will listen intently to what the Minister has to say about them. I beg to move.

Lord Stunell: My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 122A, which is in this group. Before I start, I want to say how much I appreciated the contribution just made by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond, which illustrated another example of Ministers putting provisions into Bills which they do not fully understand themselves. If they had spoken to any chief constable, any chief fire officer, or possibly anybody from North Yorkshire they would have known that this will not work. It will be very interesting to see how the Minister responds.
My amendment takes a broader look. It is not specifically concerned with the clauses relating to the problems my noble friend so ably outlined. It addresses the phrase which appears time and again:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations”,
et cetera. I ploughed my way through the first 38 clauses, and 18 start with exactly those words, three start with
“A Minister of the Crown must”
and four simply start with “Regulations may be made”. So 25 out of the first 38 clauses essentially say that the Secretary of State can do what he likes.
My amendment is not about that. It is about Clause 38(4), which goes far beyond that. It states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend, revoke or repeal a provision of or made under an enactment in consequence of provision”
in subsection (1). To paraphrase, the Secretary of State can change his mind at any time and change the regulations to suit. It occurs to me that it would have been much quicker for the Government actually to take out those 38 clauses and to have a simple one-clause Bill, the first subsection of which would say, “The Secretary of State may by regulation do whatever he chooses”, and the second, “The Secretary of State may by regulation make any change of mind he has at any time he chooses”, because that covers the essence of these 38 clauses. Explaining the extent of the Secretary of State’s powers takes 245 pages in the memorandum, so it is, even by the Government’s own reckoning, a significant problem.
Almost nothing of substance appears in the Bill. Everything is subject to regulations. Even the missions are not defined, and every attempt so far to pin the Government down on any detail, or even on the broad principles, has been resisted by the Front Bench opposite. Everything is left to the supreme genius of the Secretary of State for the time being to decide what is to be done and how. In this case, in this clause, he or she is allowed to change his mind, to revoke, repeal, et cetera. Of course, that will produce regulations that we can, if we are lucky, in due course express an opinion on but which we ourselves in Parliament certainly will not be able to amend, revoke or repeal. The Secretary of State is taking powers that are certainly denied to those of us who will subsequently look at his regulations.
If it is good enough for the Secretary of State to have the power, at the drop of a hat, to amend, revoke and repeal, then why is it not good enough for Parliament? But that, of course, is a silly question; I realise that. How naive can I be? Power is to remain in Whitehall, not to be given to town halls and certainly not to Parliament. The provision in Clause 38 illustrates the point exactly. The Bill is not handing out new powers to anyone; it simply hands out new regulations. Going  through your Lordships’ House in parallel with this Bill is the retained EU law Bill. The starting point of that is that there is far too much regulation, red tape and bureaucracy, and we need to go through every Act and regulation that has been passed in the last 46 years and decide what to throw away. I think it is part of the two-out, one-in rule.
I suggest to the Government that the difficulties they face with that Bill would be substantially relieved if they were to produce a different Bill: the retention of local government law Bill, which would do exactly the same for local government as they are trying to do in respect of EU law.
As a result of what we have in this Bill so far, levelling up is going to be largely incidental to the provision of additional levers of central government control. The Government’s capacity to design and manage the whole process as they choose is going to be strengthened. Then, when it does not work, this Clause gives them the power to tear it up and replace it with something else—all in the name of levelling up, of course. I would like the Minister to accept Amendment 122A just for the fig leaf of devolution, empowerment and levelling up, so that it can remain in place as we plough our way through the remaining 82 groups. It is emblematic of a systemic problem the Government have, and I have to say that the amendments moved by the Minister are yet another branch of the same thing.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, obviously, I completely support the argument of my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond that Clause 32 and the other clauses in this group should not stand part of the Bill. She made a powerful argument, as did my noble friend Lord Stunell, about the regulations and the power that is going to be devolved to the Secretary of State through these clauses. Further, my noble friend Lady Harris amply demonstrated the shortfalls of such mergers. This is a pilot example of what happens when provision is made for a chief constable to take over the responsibilities of a fire service. According to the argument made by my noble friend and the evidence in the HMICFRS report, it is not going well. I am beginning to think that the Government despise local government and local democracy. My noble friend Lord Stunell has just suggested a retention of local government law Bill, and perhaps that is what we have to start considering.
Clause 32(2) states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision … authorising … the chief constable … to exercise fire and rescue functions”.
I know the Government have wanted to merge these two emergency services for some time, but this is being proposed without reference to local informed discussion, debate and solution. Furthermore, Clause 33(2)—this was where I got really quite concerned—states that “A request” for such a merger
“must be accompanied by a report which contains … an assessment of why”.
That is fair enough. There are two criteria: that
“it is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness for the regulations to be made”;
“or” that
“it is in the interests of public safety”.
We are taking about emergency services, so surely you would want to consider a merger according to the first criterion: economy, efficiency and effectiveness. But you would then use the word “and” before the phrase
“in the interests of public safety”.
However, the Bill uses the word “or”, and it does so several times in these clauses. The message that sends to me is that economy, efficiency and effectiveness are far more important than public safety—even for an emergency service.
Clause 33(4) indicates that even if two-thirds—this is where the democracy bit concerns me—of the constituent members of the combined county authority oppose such a merger, the mayor could just ignore that and continue with the merger plan despite the considerable scale of opposition by involving the Secretary of State. Where is the case for merging two emergency services with very different skills? How is it going to improve public safety? As I have said, public safety seems to be a secondary requirement when considering a merger. Can the Minister let us know where to access any detailed examples, apart from the North Yorkshire model which has already been exposed as not successful, of how such mergers improve public safety? That must, after all, be key to any decision in principle that this Bill proposes.
I end with the words of my noble friend. The problems that she outlined have not been thought through properly. If the Government wish to merge two emergency services with very different backgrounds, pay structures and requirements, then we need a proper assessment prior to the Bill proposing, as it does in these clauses, that they can go ahead just by writ from the mayor and Secretary of State.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, I completely understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has brought her concerns forward. This is clearly a really important issue in Yorkshire, where she lives. I also think it draws to your Lordships’ attention that much in the Bill is perhaps not as straightforward as it would appear at first glance, and that things affect different areas in different ways. Perhaps the Government should look again at some parts of the Bill where there will be different impacts from those perhaps originally envisaged. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has drawn attention to one of these areas.
The noble Baroness mentioned the National Fire Chiefs Council. This is an opportunity to put on record the National Fire Chiefs Council’s response to the Government’s recent review of police and crime commissioners, as that puts it in the context of these clauses and our discussions about how the Bill relates to fire services and PCCs. The Government’s review looked at fire services, policing, governance and voluntary and community organisations. There were certain specifics relating to fire. The Government said that they would further look at:
“Consulting on whether to mandate the transfer of fire and rescue functions to the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner model across England where boundaries are coterminous, unless there is an option to transfer fire governance directly to an elected Mayor … Legislating to create operational independence for  Chief Fire Officers and to clearly separate and delineate strategic and operational planning for fire and rescue … Considering options to clarify the legal entities within the PFCC model.”
They stated that
“the Government is clear that further reform of fire and rescue is required in order to respond to the recommendations from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, the Kerslake Review and to build on the findings from Sir Thomas Winsor’s State of Fire and Rescue Report”.
Any reform would
“focus on three key areas: people; professionalism; and governance”.
In response, the National Fire Chiefs Council said
“if fire services are governed by a Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC)”—
we already know that some already are—
“it is imperative CFOs roles are safeguarded and have the same standing as a Chief Constable. Currently, Chief Constables … act as the employer and have operational independence. The same operational positioning for CFOs is vital, together with”
a wider status sitting alongside police forces. We know that fire services are driven by risk and risk factors; they are not as demand-led as police forces, and a number of key operational, organisational and cultural differences sit between the two services. When working with them, we need different approaches; there are different functions, and a different kind of political understanding needs to come with that.
We only need to look back over the last couple of years to see the response to the pandemic and how fire services were able to adapt quickly to the frequent challenges which emerged. However, it also showed that there are some areas that need reform to ensure that the public continue to receive the outstanding response they expect. We know that the public have huge respect and support for our fire services.
We must not forget the role of the fire services to serve communities, putting them first while reducing risk and saving lives. We must not lose sight of that when making reforms, because any reform that happens will be a pretty major undertaking and will need to be resourced appropriately. If changes come from the Bill to the way fire services are managed, we must not lose resources, and they must be carried out in a consistent, joined-up manner.
There also has to be proper clarity around the political leadership. How will that operate? With appropriate political oversight, CFOs will be well placed to deliver the operational running of services, using strong data and the evidence they need. However, if we are moving in the direction that the Bill is suggesting, there must be a democratic mandate, good governance, accountability and robust political decision-making, otherwise there is a risk of undermining the community’s trust in those services, which is critical.
We also need clear lines of responsibility, and we should have national guidance and standards on this for all forces, PCCs and fire services to follow. Any strategic direction of budgets has to be properly evidence-based, with clearly defined roles for the people who are part of those services.
To conclude, one of the things we are concerned about, which came across in the earlier contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, is the confusion presented by so many different models, both those  which currently exist and those which will be expanded by the proposals in the Bill. So clarity going forward is critical.
I turn, very briefly, to Amendment 122A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. He is absolutely right to be concerned about the fact that the Secretary of State in this part of the Bill is basically being allowed to do whatever they like. The whole Bill has been pitched as devolving power, but this is centralising power, and it goes against the spirit of what we felt the Bill proposed to be. We need proper checks and balances on any powers given to PCCs and the Secretary of State, so we completely support the noble Lord’s amendment. Any Secretary of State should not be able to amend, revoke or repeal at a whim.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the ability of combined county authority mayors to take on fire and rescue functions. On issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—it is very nice to see her; we miss her in the House—Clause 32 enables the mayor of a combined county authority to exercise fire and rescue functions in the same way that a mayor of a combined authority can. We have seen this already in Greater Manchester, where the mayor has taken on the police and crime commissioner role and fire and rescue functions.
This allows public safety functions to be taken as a package where there is a local desire for this—we are not imposing it—and boundaries are co-terminous. It is worth noting that this is a choice for the local area, allowing the decision to be taken at the most local level, in line with the principle of localism. We are also keen to ensure that, whenever possible, the functions of combined authorities and combined county authorities should be the same. This starts to answer the noble Baroness opposite: we are trying to simplify things; we are not trying to add different complications. We are trying to make the combined authorities and combined county authorities—

Baroness Pinnock: I apologise for interrupting the Minister. She has said that the decision will be made only if it is supported democratically. Yet Clause 33(4)(b) says that
“at least two thirds of the constituent members of the CCA”
can indicate that
“they disagree with the proposal for the regulations to be made”,
and Clause 33(5) says that the mayor, in providing a report to the Secretary of State, must give their response to those same proposals. I thought that democracy was about winning the argument, not finding a way around it.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: The Secretary of State would have an independent review of the decision and would make a decision taking all that into account.
We are also keen, as I say, to make sure that those combined authorities and combined county authorities operate in the same way to ensure this consistent approach to devolving these functions to mayors, whether  they are leading a combined authority or a combined county authority. This clause achieves that for the exercise of fire and rescue functions by replicating the existing provisions in the 2009 Act.
I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness regarding Clause 33. The single-employer model is just one option available to combined county authority mayors with both police and crime and fire and rescue authority functions, allowing the area’s chief constable to run both operational services. A mayor of a CCA could seek to utilise the model if they felt that doing so would deliver a more effective service. To go back to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, if we are talking about fire and rescue and police and crime, an effective service is one that keeps people safe; that is their job and I suggest that, if it is effective, that is exactly what they are doing.
As far as York and North Yorkshire are concerned, the fire and rescue service and the police and crime functions are, as the noble Baroness said, already adjoined, but without the use of a single employer. That has not been taken into account in York and North Yorkshire, and there is no reason to think that the mayor will do that. At the moment, the combined authority still has to go through parliamentary approval, so that will be something for local people in the future.
Clause 33 sets out the process required for the mayor of a combined county authority to request fire and rescue functions. The clause is an important part of the procedure to be followed when fire and rescue functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of the single-employer model. It ensures that there is sufficient scrutiny from both constituent councils of the CCA and the public because it requires the mayor to provide a report setting out an assessment of the benefits of the conferral and a summary of the public consultation carried out, along with a specific summary of representations from the constituent members of the CCA and the mayoral response to them.
This clause also contains further scrutiny to make sure that any proposal will deliver more effective services for an area. The Secretary of State has to obtain and publish an independent assessment of a proposal from a combined county authority mayor if two-thirds or more of the constituent members of the CCA oppose the transfer. The Secretary of State will then agree to transfer the functions only if they consider that doing so is in the interests of public safety for that area.
Removing the clause would remove key conditions for fire and rescue functions to be transferred to the mayor of a combined county authority and could therefore potentially lead to proposals going forward that have not been subject to either sufficient consultation or robust assessment. This in turn could lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.
I move on to issues the noble Baroness raised regarding Clause 34. This clause enables the Secretary of State to make provisions relating to the administrative operation of fire and rescue services, should a combined county authority mayor request these functions and transfer them to their chief constable to carry out on their behalf under the single-employer model. The clause  is necessary because it enables there to be a scheme to transfer property, rights and liabilities as part of implementing the single-employer model. It also allows the chief constable to appoint staff as part of delegating their fire and rescue functions, subject to the necessary and important restrictions on who can carry out these responsibilities so that operational independence between policing and fire is maintained.
Removing this clause would make it very difficult for the chief constable to carry out their functions under the single-employer model, because they would not have access to key assets or be able to effectively resource their delivery. This would therefore lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and would hinder its day-to-day operation in a way that could ultimately impact on the successful delivery of these public safety functions for the area concerned.
On the issues raised by the noble Baroness on Clause 35, this clause sets out safeguards governing the exercise of fire and rescue functions where the single-employer model is being operated. These include a requirement on the chief constable to make sure that they secure good value for money, and an obligation on the CCA mayor to hold those exercising functions under the model to account. This clause is another important part of the process and procedure to be followed when these functions have been conferred on the mayor as part of the single-employer model. Where possible, the processes for handling the functions available to be conferred on combined county authority mayors are the same as those for combined authority mayors and subject to the same requirements.
Removing the clause would mean that the single-employer model would work less well in practice because important safeguards on the exercise of fire and rescue functions under the model would be lost. This in turn would lead to ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.
I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness in relation to Clause 36. This clause enables the Secretary of State by regulation to make provisions corresponding to Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 dealing with complaints and conduct matters. This clause is an optional power to be used when these functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of implementing the single-employer model. It specifically relates to complaint and conduct matters for members of a police force and their civilian staff or members of staff transferred to a chief constable or appointed by them where they are exercising functions under the single-employer model.
Removing the clause would mean that the methods for dealing with complaints and conduct matters could not be specified for those carrying out functions under the single-employer model where a combined county authority mayor has decided to use it to exercise their police and crime and fire and rescue functions. Without this clause, it would be much more difficult for any complaints and conduct matters to be handled consistently and efficiently, thereby hindering the effective implementation and day-to-day operation of the single-employer model.
Clause 37 allows the Secretary of State to transfer the application of fire and rescue provisions under Section 32 to specified persons where regulations have  transferred these functions to the chief constable of the area. Removing this clause would mean that the Secretary of State would not be able to make further provisions applying a fire and rescue enactment or new corresponding provisions in relation to chief constables to whom fire and rescue functions have been delegated as part of the use of the single-employer model. As such, removing this clause would hinder the effective implementation of the single-employer model.
Amendment 122A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, relates to powers under Clause 38.

Lord Scriven: I have listened very carefully both to the speeches that were made regarding the power of fire and rescue and police being together and the noble Baroness’s answers. I assume the purpose of this is not just an administrative difference but actually to improve the services of fire and police to people where this merger happens. Has the Minister looked at the four areas where this has happened, and His Majesty’s inspector of fire and police? Do those areas actually have a better service, an average service or a worse service than the national average?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I cannot answer the noble Lord in detail, but I will look into it and make sure he has those comparisons and knows what they are.

Lord Scriven: I can help the noble Baroness: having looked at the comparisons, I can say that they are actually below the national average. So, what is the purpose of going through this huge administrative issue if it does not improve the services to people on the ground?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: Because this is localism. If local areas want to take on those responsibilities, the Government have been listening to local authorities and combined authorities and listening to the fact that they want to take these on. The fact that there are only a few of these combined police and crime responsibilities and fire and rescue responsibilities—at the moment, there are not very many—means that it is quite difficult to tell, but we need to keep an eye on it, obviously, and I will come back to that in a minute under Amendment 122A.
The Secretary of State has power under this clause, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, to apply legislation relating to police and crime commissioners in relation to combined county authority mayors where the single-employer model—that is, the ability to make the chief constable the single operational head of both the police force and the fire and rescue service—has been engaged. Clause 38(4) provides a power to amend, revoke or repeal legislation consequential on that power. This is important because of exactly what the noble Lord opposite said: this is the power that could be used if any area has implemented the single-employer model but the chief constable is failing to manage the F&RS effectively. The Secretary of State may wish to revoke the implementation of the single-employer model and use this provision to do so. I think this is the power we have put in to ensure that exactly what the noble Lord opposite says need not happen.

Lord Stunell: I thank the noble Baroness for her response, which I am not sure entirely clarifies the situation. What she seems to be saying is that the Bill introduces a new scheme whose outcome is so uncertain that we need an extra provision for it to be changed if it goes wrong. That is in light of what my noble friend has just said, which is that the four actual examples that exist at the moment have all performed below average. So, in that sense, her caution about having such a power is perhaps quite sound, but does that not rather indicate that the model itself should not go ahead in this form until the Government are satisfied that it will achieve the objectives of improved performance, or at least not deteriorating performance, before she proceeds?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think we will not know exactly until we try it, but there will always be this power to say that, if those local people are not getting the service they require, the Secretary of State can revoke.

Lord Stunell: I think I am right on this, although the noble Baroness might correct me. I got through the first 38 clauses and I think this was the first time I saw this particular revocation and amendment power being given to the Secretary of State. I believe that would have the effect of that amendment being made without any further reference to Parliament, other than through a set of regulations that we cannot amend—so its absence would simply mean that, should something need to be corrected, it would come back to Parliament. Is that interpretation correct?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: No, it is a power for the Secretary of State.
The amendment seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to such legislation. The effect would be that the Secretary of State could still apply police and crime commissioner legislation in relation to a combined county authority mayor or chief constable but could not make any necessary consequential amendments to reflect a change of circumstances. This limitation is undesirable and would result in flawed and inconsistent legislation in this area.
Finally, I will address the issues raised by the noble Baroness on Clause 38. This clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations applying legislation that relates to a police and crime commissioner to a combined county authority mayor or a chief constable where the combined county authority mayor has adopted the single-employer model. Removing the clause would hinder the effective full implementation of the single-employer model because it would mean that the Secretary of State could not make further regulations applying local policing enactments or new corresponding provisions in relation to mayors of combined county authorities who have implemented the model.
I hope that my explanation will reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord of the importance of this group of clauses to the effective conferral of fire and rescue functions on combined county authority  mayors, specifically on those opting to use the single-employer model to exercise these functions, and will therefore enable her to withdraw her opposition to them standing part of the Bill.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. All the clauses stand together, so I need to read Hansard carefully and go through her comments on each clause. I believe there was some contradiction in what she said, so it is important that I am quite clear going forward that I have understood absolutely what has been said this afternoon. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will withdraw my opposition at this point to the clauses standing part, but we will come back to this on Report.
Clause 32 agreed.

  
Clause 33: Section 32 regulations: procedure
  

Amendment 122 not moved.
Clause 33 agreed.
Clauses 34 to 37 agreed.

  
Clause 38: Section 32 regulations: application of local policing provisions
  

Amendment 122A not moved.
Clause 38 agreed.

  
Clause 39: Mayors for CCA areas: financial matters
  

Amendment 123 not moved.
Clause 39 agreed.

  
Clause 40: Alternative mayoral titles
  

Amendment 124 not moved.
Clause 40 agreed.

  
Clause 41: Alternative mayoral titles: further changes
  

Amendment 125 not moved.
Clause 41 agreed.
Clause 42 agreed.

  
Clause 43: Proposal for new CCA

Amendment 125A

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
125A: Clause 43, page 38, line 37, at end insert—“(ba) a district council whose area is within the proposed area;”Member’s explanatory statementThis would add district councils to the list of local authorities who may prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA and to be able to submit such a proposal to the Secretary of State.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have had at least two debates so far on the role of non-metropolitan district councils within the new framework, and I want to return to this theme for my two amendments in this group.
My concern is that district councils are essentially being marginalised in the new arrangements and excluded from being a component part of new arrangements for combined county authorities. It seems that this is part of a government trend to want to create ever-larger units of local government, undermining local democracy and the local involvement of the public. I very much agreed the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on Monday when he spoke of a “mania” in government that bigger is automatically better when it comes to local government. That is of course reinforced by the desire of many London-based quangos, public authorities and pressure groups to limit the number of local authorities they have to deal with.
It has been argued by some that larger local authorities are more efficient, but I have seen scant evidence of this. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made a very telling intervention on the combined police and fire authorities, saying that so far, the four in question have performed poorly. I suspect that the main reason why Whitehall has always wanted to create larger local authorities is simply that it makes it easier for it to control local government.
Two weeks ago, in discussing his Amendment 71 to Clause 8, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, reminded the Committee why district councils are so important. They deliver 86 out of 137 essential local government services to some 22 million people, which is 40% of the population of England. They cover such things such as waste collection, street cleaning, housing, economic development, planning, leisure, recreation, and many others. They are also better known, more popular and more trusted than other tiers of government. I remind the noble Lord that years ago, when my own Government tried to introduce regional government, starting with a referendum in the north-east, one of the key reasons why it failed was that people did not want local district councils to be abolished.
Frankly, it was a bit to my surprise and with no little consternation that I realised in preparing for this debate that in two months’ time, I will celebrate the 50th anniversary of being elected a member of Oxford City Council, in May 1973. I was in good company, since my noble friend Lord Liddle, and the noble Lords, Lord Oakeshott, and Lord Patten, were similarly elected. My excitement at being elected a councillor at the age of 23 was tempered by the fact it was a shadow authority preparing to take over in 1974, when there was a major restructuring of local government. Oxford lost its county borough unitary status and became a second-tier authority, essentially subordinate to an enlarged county council that was mainly concerned with rural interests. For an international city of huge strategic importance, which I think the Chancellor emphasised again today, that was a bitter pill to swallow. It has made me very wary of a Whitehall/Westminster drive over the years to press for ever larger local government units, as evidenced by the Bill.
Our debates on district councils have so far been in relation to Clause 8(11) and the constitutional arrangements for combined county authorities, whereby  non-unitary district councils are not to be classified as constituent councils. Two weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said she found it insulting that democratically elected district councils are to be aligned in the new arrangements with non-constituent bodies and put in the same category as local business groups, chambers of trade and trade union bodies, which, of course, are not elected by the public. On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said he had come to the conclusion that district councils within a CCA area should become full members. My noble friend Baroness Hayman, speaking for the Opposition, said that district councils should be constituent, not non-constituent, members of a CCA to ensure they can play a full part in decision-making for their area. I think there is a growing consensus, at least in some parts of the House, that district councils need to have a greater stake in the new arrangements.
In referring to Clause 8, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, justified the Government’s exclusion of district councils by arguing that the model will provide the flexibility required for devolution to areas with two-tier local government and remove the risk of one or two district councils vetoing the wishes of the great majority for devolution. My understanding is that that has happened in only one place, which is scant evidence for excluding district councils completely from these new arrangements. The noble Earl went on to say that the Government expect the upper-tier local authorities with which they are agreeing devolution deals to work with their district councils. The problem is that it is entirely up to county councils whether they are going to embrace district councils officially.
Let me return to Monday’s debate and Amendment 155, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. Page 54 of the Bill states, remarkably, that non-constituent members of a combined authority can have a vote if the members of the combined authority agree to it. I take the noble Earl, Lord Howe, back to the example of Oxford, in response to which he said:
“it is entirely possible that a combined authority may have provided for an associate member—for example, a local business leader—" —[Official Report, 13/3/23; col. 1107.]
to have an input, and thereby a vote. He may not know it because he is so young—comparatively speaking—but up to 1974 the University of Oxford had two places on Oxford City Council, and it did appoint. Thinking of Oxfordshire in a new CCA arrangement, it is quite likely that the university will get a place as an associate member. Under these provisions, it could have a vote, and yet Oxford City Council would not. That is not justified.
In a sense, this debate is a bit of sideshow compared to the Clause 8 debate, but at least when it comes to the way applications can be made for the establishment of CCAs, surely district councils should have a formal right to play a part. Why not just give them the ability to make applications, or a recognised role in so doing? If the Government are serious about wanting a stronger incentive for districts, counties and unitaries to collaborate, surely this is one way to provide it. That is all my amendment asks for. It does not give them a veto; it says that, as elected statutory bodies, it is not unreasonable for them to be formally involved in the application process.
I hope that at the end of this Bill, we will have restored district councils to their rightful place as important local authorities with the right to participate and vote in CCAs, but also to play a part in the application process. I beg to move.

Lord Mann: My Lords, I support this amendment and reiterate my perplexity at how the politician loves to know better than the people. The higher the politician goes, the more that politician loves to think that they know better than everybody else. That is not a powerful model of democracy. The idea that somehow jumbling around boundaries and structures, and who has which powers, will advance anything positively for society, or for the people, is a perplexing notion.
Some people have kindly suggested that I might want to stand for mayor of some body called Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. I cannot think of anything more appalling than being stuck in some office, trying to influence an incoherent geographical structure that, if anything, thrives on its rivalry rather than on what brings it together. It is a nonsense. The notion that bigger is best for how to change things in society, whatever the Government’s agenda, is a nonsense.
I cite one example, referring, as I have before, to where I live. In neighbourhood planning, planning for rail and community planning, which district council has more such plans in place than any other? I know the answer: Bassetlaw has the most. Why does it have the most? I take a little personal credit for going out and spending many, many weeks—probably months—persuading local people that this was a good idea. It originated under a Labour Government but was put into practice with enthusiasm by coalition and Conservative Governments. I went out and sold that model to people: “Here, you can determine, at the most local level, what should happen in your area”—and people love it. The Government’s objective, which they hid away—I was more up front—was to bring forward more housing. Strangely, when local people decided what happened in their local area, they said, “Here’s where it should go” and, “That would be good”. There was not just small consent but huge consent behind it. There were remarkably high levels of agreement.
This modest amendment is on the same principle. Of course district councils have some flaws; for example, in their ability to recruit the highest grade of staff in a very competitive market. If they have someone brilliant, but it is a small unit, that person can easily be poached by a larger unit and paid more. There are some inherent weaknesses but not in the principle of where democracy lies. I would say that, across the country, the overwhelming majority of lifelong Conservative Party voters would wholeheartedly endorse this amendment, as would many more people who support other parties whole- heartedly or whose votes would float all over the place. However, if the Government do not listen to this, they are hitting their own heartland in the heart, which is not a very clever move.

Lord Jackson of Peterborough: My Lords, I shall briefly respond to the cogent arguments made by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Mann. They  made me almost sentimental for our time in the other place and I was taken back to the comments and speeches there from the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
Although, superficially, I can see the merit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, he does not take the concept of subsidiarity into account. This is what district councils are best at doing and it is at the lower level, although the functions are important. The purpose of the Bill is to leverage funding for strategic economic benefit. It is about inward investment, strategic transport and returns to scale from, for instance, police forces and fire services working together. It is not about diminishing the role, heritage and historical legacy of district councils.
My own area, Peterborough, in 1968 was a small, semi-rural, cathedral market town. No one imagined that it was ready to become a new town and have the significant growth that it saw between then, when it was designated a new town, and the 1990s. There was massive residential housing growth, big industries coming and the expansion of Perkins Engines, Thomas Cook, et cetera. My point is that, when it was a small district council, Peterborough could not have brought that economic powerhouse and growth itself; it had to work with other agencies and the Peterborough Development Corporation.
I am not arguing for a reconfiguration of development corporations, although the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, knows a lot about how they benefited Stevenage. My point is that you have to work with these larger bodies, which are below national but above small district council level. Take another example from the county of Suffolk. Local authorities, such as St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath were tiny; they could not deliver the core functions, in a globalised world, to bring jobs, opportunities, apprenticeships and new businesses to their areas. That is the point of this legislation; it is not about diminishing the role of district councils, but about helping them better fulfil their roles and responsibilities.
I can imagine the noble Lord, Lord Mann, becoming the mayor of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. I cannot think of a better candidate and am sure he would stand a good chance.
Oxford is a slightly strange example because it is, in effect, a world city. Three or four of our universities are in the world top 10, and Oxford is at the very heart of the success story of British academic repute. So Oxford is not a good example, but it obviously functions as a very important part of the greater Thames Valley, as an area of economic regeneration.
Having been a local councillor for eight years, albeit for a London borough, my heart is with the points of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but I think that the Government’s endeavours go in the right direction. Only if we can think big, work together and collaborate can we generate the economic activity, jobs and skills that will, eventually, we hope, regenerate local government and complement central government.

Lord Stunell: My Lords, it has been an interesting debate and I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made very clear the key part that district councils play, in particular in local  communities but also in the bigger architecture of local government outside the big cities. It is an argument that the noble Lord and these Benches have advanced before and we support it.
I like the noble Lord’s amendment, of course, but I want to move on to what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, had to say. He was, I think, claiming credit for neighbourhood plans. I am delighted to hear that, because I usually claim credit for them and I know a number of Conservatives who always claim credit for them as well. They have been remarkably successful and have done just what they said on the tin. I have a tip for the Government; it is one that I keep making but they keep forgetting. Neighbourhood plans have been so successful that they have designated more housing sites than the local plans that they supersede in their areas. Rather than some of the gimmicks that flow through Whitehall and get into Acts of Parliament, neighbourhood plans have actually done the job and filled the gaps. I hope that that point will be registered strongly.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, made a sound point about economic development. It is clearly very important, but that brings me to my criticism of the Government’s intentions as far as it is concerned. Economic development is one of the core functions of district councils. If they are not going to be seen as an important component in delivering it, something has been missed out of the system. Clause 86(2) says that
“regard is to be had to … the development plan, and … any national development management policies.”
It would make an alteration to a preceding Act; the addition is
“any national development management policies.”
My point is that the development plan is there. If you want development, it is going to be in the development plan. Who is responsible for that? It is the district council.
We have a situation where the development plan is in the gift of the local planning authority, which is the district council in two-tier areas. The district council has statutory responsibility for housing, economic planning and, for that matter, the location of social infrastructure such as clinics, schools, colleges and so on. They are in fact integral to delivering levelling up. I cannot understand—I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us this—what the architecture is for the delivery of the national development management plans, which, as far as Clause 86 is concerned, clearly sit bang alongside the local plans of the district council.
On the face of it, the CCAs are completely bypassed. They do not have a role in deciding what the national plan is, nor in deciding what the local plan is. The connection is straight between the local planning authorities and district councils, not CCAs, when it comes to those planning decisions.

Lord Jackson of Peterborough: Would not the noble Lord concede that a large number of functions at the district council level, such as environmental health and planning, are delivered through the collaboration of district councils together for the reason that individual district councils do not have the resources in staffing or money to deliver them on their own?  Therefore, a complex district plan being delivered by just one local authority may have been the case in the past but is not necessarily happening at the moment.

Lord Stunell: One part of what the noble Lord says is certainly true, because a lot of local plans are not happening at the moment. All I say is that the Bill restates that development plans are a key lever, together with national development management plans. Those are in the custodianship of district councils, albeit that they may well work alongside other district councils or, for that matter, in combination with the county. I am simply making the point that the legal architecture in Clause 86 links district councils’ local plans to the national development plans, while the CCAs are not in the picture. Clearly, CCAs are intended to be the absolute economic driver for levelling up; that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. It seems odd that the principal vehicle at the local level for setting that scene—the development plan—will be outside the grip of the CCAs, for better or worse, and that the people who do the district plans will be outside the CCAs. There is a disconnect there that, frankly, disables the whole process. There I am completely with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Surely they should be at the heart of the process and, by the logic of that, should have the capacity to at least put forward a proposal, which would still be subject to the Secretary of State’s decision about how it might develop.
I cannot go back to 1906 or whatever the date was—1974, I think. I go back to only 1979 so I am quite young in this, but I did manage to fit in 11 years on a district council, 10 years on a county council and then eight years on a metropolitan borough, so I have a well-scarred back. If you get partnership and ownership, you can get joint endeavours and you success. If you get alienation, that is a recipe for failure. If you leave district councils out of the equation—if you make them subsidiary, just adjuncts to CCAs—I would not be surprised if, at least in some places, their co-operation was significantly less than it would be if they were active and valued partners of the CCA. I say that to the Minister because, sometimes, politics has to give way to human nature or at least has to recognise the existence of human nature, and if district councils are spurned, they are going to be less helpful and co-operative. He may say, “We’ll soon deal with that”, but that is not a recipe for success. All I say to him is that he should please give serious consideration to what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, because he is giving the Government an avenue—a gateway—to unleash that co-operation between the two tiers of local government so that CCAs in fact prosper.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling the amendment. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his 50 years in local government and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on his many years in local government. I went into local government in 1997. I was leader of my council for nearly 17 years before I joined your Lordships’ House, so I am the baby of the party here. However, I learned a few things  along the way, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, kindly remarked. I want to cover some comments about my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment and to make some general points about the role of district councils in the new world that we are looking at following the Bill.
The big question here was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, which is: where does democracy lie? This is a very important question. We think about it often in local councils. In previous sittings, we have heard set out clearly before your Lordships’ House the incredibly valuable role that district councils play in many of our communities in the UK, and I am grateful that this has been brought before us once again today. That is why it is so disappointing that the Bill, which purports to be all about devolution and bringing decision-making closer to people, seems to ride roughshod over the very tier of local government and the 183 councils that are closest to many people and communities. District councils outstrip county council colleagues and national government by a very long way indeed on issues such as helping people feel proud of their area, tackling social issues in our neighbourhoods, responding to and dealing with emergencies and, importantly, bringing the views of local people into decision-making in their local area. The figures are 62% for the district councils, 32% for county councils and 6%—yes, just 6%—for national government. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, district councils cover about 40% of the UK’s population but, importantly for the purposes of the Bill, they cover 68% of the land of the UK.
In this country we already have the lowest number of elected representatives per head in Europe; France has 35,000 communes with mayors and Germany has 11,000 municipalities. It is the UK that has abnormal levels of underrepresentation, and our councillors lack the powers and finances of many of our continental counterparts. Across the country we have around 2,000 electors per district councillor, which may account for their approachability, whereas there are 9,000 electors per county councillor.
They also represent communities that people recognise —I think this is key for the Bill. The comments by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, were very important here; people relate to the communities represented by our district councils. Surely the Bill should aim to keep the devolution we already have, not snatch it away to bigger and bigger combined authorities. That does not sound like progress to me.
This is not to set up any false conflict or rivalry between counties and districts. We all have a job to do and county councils are currently doing a valiant job in very trying circumstances. But with the high-cost services at county level, such as adult care services and children’s services, impacting on around just 5% of the population, whereas district council services impact on 100% of the population, it is perhaps not surprising to see how valued district councils are by their communities. As well as environmental services like the ones that my noble friend Lord Hunt commented on—waste collection, fly-tipping, street cleaning, licensing and food safety—districts look after leisure, parks and culture. They often take a role in preventive public health initiatives—in my own borough we have a Young People’s Healthy Hub tackling mental health issues for young  people—town centre and high street management, tourism and so on. They also deal with key strategic services. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on this, because without key strategic services such as planning and economic development, there would be no levelling up. Leveraging £1 billion of town centre investment, as we have done in my borough, and £5 billion for a cell and gene therapy park—these are important contributions to the local area.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, referred to neighbourhood planning, which is a key part of how we drive forward issues around housing. It is well documented that it is neighbourhood planning that has actually delivered housing; it is a very important part of what has been done. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to issues around the structure and architecture of the national development management policies. Frankly, I do not understand how this is going to work in the way it is currently set out in the Bill.
There are plenty of other contributions that district councils make. It was alarming to hear the Minister contend in our earlier session this week that
“councils do not deliver any of the services required by the PCC.”—[Official Report, 13/3/23; col. 1143.]
That does not take into account the very successful partnership working between district councils and the police. As well as managing CCTV systems and often funding neighbourhood wardens, districts have extensive programs for tackling anti-social behaviour and for drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and are often linked with Housing First provision, domestic abuse, engaging communities in setting local policing priorities and tackling enforcement issues in licensing, fly-tipping and environmental crime, to name but a few. During the pandemic, in two-tier areas it was often district councils that stepped up to either take on the support of those who were shielding or help mobilise hyperlocal resources to do so.
Forgive me for perhaps labouring the point a little, but the premise of the Bill, which seeks to override the very important role that district councils play in our communities, may be based on a misunderstanding or an outdated view of what district councils actually do. Of course, on planning issues, when we are looking at big strategic planning, districts have to work in partnership with other bodies—the health service, local enterprise partnerships and county councils—but I contend that this means they must have a vote and a voice around that table. Therefore, I support my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment in this group, as I have with others in earlier sessions that give district councils—and indeed town and parish councils—the voice that they deserve and that their communities expect them to have.

Earl Howe: My Lords, Amendment 125A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, brings us back to a set of issues that we have discussed in a number of our earlier debates: the question of which authorities can prepare a proposal for the establishment of a combined county authority and submit the proposal to the Secretary of State. The amendment seeks to add second-tier district councils within the proposed CCA’s area to this list of authorities. However, as the noble Lord is aware, the Bill provides that only upper-tier  local authorities—county councils and unitary councils—can be constituent members of a CCA. District councils cannot be constituent members of a CCA and, as such, cannot prepare and submit a proposal for a CCA.
Let me take the Committee through the rationale for this approach. When CCAs come into being, they will ensure that there is a mechanism for strategic decision-making across a functional economic area or whole-county geography; in other words, co-operation over matters for which upper-tier local authorities already have responsibility.
In the Government’s view, therefore, it makes sense to enable upper-tier local authorities to decide, albeit following appropriate consultation, whether a CCA across a wider geographic area might offer advantages for such whole-county strategic decision-making. That is not to say that district councils should have no voice in the way a CCA comes into being; quite the contrary. While we believe that it is right for district councils not to form part of the constituent membership of a CCA, they are nevertheless key stakeholders in the devolution process. As we stated in the levelling up White Paper, while we will negotiate devolution deals with upper-tier local authorities across a functional economic area or whole-county geography, we expect county councils to work closely with the district councils in their area during the formulation of the proposal and subsequently. This is exactly what has been happening to date, and we have been pleased to see it.
How can we ensure that the voice of district councils is heard as a CCA proposal is being put together? As discussed in Committee previously, authorities proposing a CCA must undertake a public consultation on the proposal. As key local stakeholders, district councils would be consulted. Their views would be reflected in any summary of consultation responses submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration.
The task of the Secretary of State is then to assess whether the consultation has been sufficient. In doing so, the Secretary of State will have regard to whether it reflects the views of a full range of local stakeholders, including district councils should there be any. The Cabinet Office principles for public consultations are very clear that those conducting a public consultation must consult the full range of local stakeholders, not simply local residents but businesses, public authorities, voluntary sector organisations and others with a legitimate interest. If the Secretary of State, mindful of those principles and in the light of the evidence presented, deems the consultation not to be adequate, they themselves must consult on the proposal. Any such consultation would include consulting district councils.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage: I thank the noble Earl for giving way. I do not accept the principle that the district councils in an area, which are the democratically elected representatives for their people, are the same as all the other stakeholders that the noble Earl referred to and just another consultee in this process. Fundamentally, that is where the discussions we have had on this so far have given us such a deal of trouble. District councils have an elected mandate from the people they represent. I appreciate that there are very strong rules around Cabinet Office consultations  and so on in the principles that the noble Earl has set out, but surely there must be a different approach to district councils because of the elected mandate that their representatives hold.

Earl Howe: I obviously listened with great care to the noble Baroness when she made her initial intervention. I take on board the point she made, which I understand. It was made by other noble Lords. I am trying to set out for the Committee the direction the Government are coming from in framing the Bill’s provisions.
I just want to emphasise a point that I made in an earlier debate, which may not be sufficiently appreciated. I look in particular at the noble Lord, Lord Mann. The Bill in no way removes any powers or functions of district councils, which are rightly their own sovereign bodies and will continue to exercise their own powers and functions within the broader context of the CCA. Indeed, as we have already debated, we fully expect that, in many cases, CCAs will decide to give district councils a seat at the table as non-constituent members, should they deem that this will usefully inform decision-making. It would be open to a CCA to give voting rights to such a non-constituent member, if it considered this appropriate. It is right that we should give CCAs that freedom. The sub-strategic matters for which district councils are primarily responsible will often be directly germane to the strategic issues being considered and decided on at CCA level.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for the points he made. As I am sure he is aware, we will immerse ourselves in the issues he raised on national development plans when we move to the parts of the Bill relating to planning, but I hope for now that that explanation will assist the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in understanding why—

Lord Lansley: I apologise for intervening at this late stage, having made no speech, but I would like to ask a couple of questions of my noble friend that relate to Clause 43. The first is a simple one. There is a reference to a combined authority being able to make a proposal relating to a new combined county authority. I am confused, since I understood that a combined county authority would not be able to encompass any part of the area of an existing combined authority. Is it anticipated that circumstances might arise where a combined authority would transfer some of its area to a new combined county authority? That is just a question for future reference.
Secondly, the clause includes a reference, which we have seen before, to an “economic prosperity board”—which I take in most cases to mean local enterprise partnerships—having the right to make a proposal or having the requirement to consent to a proposal for a new CCA. The Government announced in the Budget today that they intend, as they put it, to withdraw support for local enterprise partnerships from April 2024. What does this imply? How does the business community have a voice and through whom, since the Government intend the functions of the local enterprise partnerships to be devolved to local government? Would  my noble friend at least agree that something might be said about this at an early stage, before we complete this section relating to what an economic prosperity board is supposed to do?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I think that my best course is to write to my noble friend on both issues. He is perfectly right that Clause 43(2)(e) refers to
“a combined authority the whole or any part of whose area is within the proposed area”
as being a body to which the section applies; that is to say, a body which may prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA for an area and submit that proposal to the Secretary of State. It would be wise of me to set down in writing the kinds of circumstances in which we envisage that particular geographic area playing a part in the formation of a CCA. On the questions my noble friend raised on economic prosperity boards, I again think it best that I should write to him.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that the policy for CCA establishment and operation, as reflected in the Bill, neither belittles nor marginalises the important role played by district councils. When a CCA is formed, any district councils within its geographic radius will be important stakeholders—it is very hard to see how they could not be—albeit alongside many others. However, they cannot be a constituent member of a co-operative local government grouping whose membership is determined by reference to strategic functions and powers which are the primary province of upper-tier and unitary authorities. That is the logic.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate; I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part and to the Minister for his very careful response. At heart, I come back to the contributions from my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on the importance of district councils to local democracy. It seems to me that there is a risk that they are ridden over roughshod in the Bill. I listened with care to what the Minister said at the end; it is interesting that he referred to them as being second-tier, but I am not sure that I accept that. I find that to be pejorative in itself. Housing, local planning and environmental health are not second-tier; they are the statutory body. There is a big risk here.
I have experience as a member of Birmingham City Council, where we had metropolitan counties and metropolitan district councils. To call Birmingham City Council second-tier to the then West Midlands County Council would have been greeted with absolute horror. I know that the powers were slightly different, because the met districts had more powers than the non-met districts, but the principle still arises.
I take what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said— I understand the point about leverage and economic development—but the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is surely right in saying that the district councils’ own responsibility in terms of the preparation of development plans means that, tactically if nothing else, they need to have a seat at the table. The trouble with being associates is that it really does not convey the importance that the district councils have.
I also sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, when he talked about geographically incoherent CCAs—surely, he is right. I am afraid that I have to refer back again to 1974: the proposals were made during the Heath Government, when Peter Walker was the Environment Secretary, but it fell to the 1974 Labour Government to preside over the new arrangements.
Do noble Lords remember Avon County Council, Humberside County Council and Hereford and Worcester? They were hated because people did not accept that they were coherent authorities. Put Worcestershire and Herefordshire together and you begin to see some of the problems: these CCAs are very artificial architecture, are they not, really? We will see these large units that will appear so remote from the public. The argument here is that at the very least, surely, we should make sure that the non-met district councils have a proper role and seat at the place. There have been a number of amendments and debates, and I think that between now and Report we have to find a way to signify that district councils are important. Having said that, it has been a good debate and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 125A withdrawn.
Amendment 126 not moved.
Clause 43 agreed.

  
Clause 44: Requirements in connection with establishment of CCA
  

Amendment 127 not moved.
Clause 44 agreed.
Clause 45 agreed.

  
Clause 46: Requirements for changes to existing arrangements relating to CCA
  

Amendment 127A not moved.
Clause 46 agreed.
Clause 47 agreed.

  
Clause 48: Boundaries of power under section 47

Amendment 128

Lord Scriven: Moved by Lord Scriven
128: Clause 48, page 43, line 18, at end insert– “(3A) A CCA may, with the consent of its constituent authorities, request that the Chancellor of the Exchequer devolve further fiscal powers to that CCA to help its regeneration powers, and those fiscal powers may not be unreasonably withheld.”Member’s explanatory statementThis is a probing amendment to assess the Government's willingness to empower a CCA to drive its regeneration plans forward using enhanced fiscal powers.

Lord Scriven: My Lords, I shall speak to the only amendment in this group, Amendment 128 in my name and signed by my noble friend Lord Shipley. This is a probing amendment to tease out the Government’s thinking on this issue. It was a deliberate decision to have this amendment in a group on its own because this really is the elephant in the room: fiscal devolution. We can talk about structures and systems but, without the proper levers of finance and autonomy at a local level, the structures and the systems will achieve very little and will not deliver the equalling up of areas and regions across the country.
I think we need to be clear about what this amendment is not about. This is not about handing down moneys raised by national taxation to areas so they have a little extra leeway on how that money can be spent. As welcome as this is, it is a small step that is not going to solve the regional inequalities that exist in the country. This is what the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands authority calls the “begging bowl approach”. It is nothing more than spending decentralisation. It was quite amusing, listening to the Chancellor earlier today talk about a pothole fund. The very notion that a Chancellor of the Exchequer stands up in the national Parliament to deal with potholes is ludicrous. A predetermined pot of money handed down, usually with strings from Whitehall, to have local areas determine key projects in areas to spend that money is not fiscal devolution.
It was also telling that the Chancellor today, in announcing that the West Midlands and Greater Manchester combined authorities will have departmental-type arrangements, sees these arrangements as nothing more than decentralisation of central government departmental spending. It is even more telling, as has been reported in the Financial Times, I think it was, that even when the areas get this extra leeway on how the money is spent, there may be a committee set up here in Westminster to oversee how that money is prioritised and then spent. Other parts of the world that understand and implement devolution will be laughing in disbelief at this ridiculous notion of local autonomy.
Let us be clear about what this amendment does talk about and what we are trying to glean from the Government. It is about extra levers the Government are thinking of giving to local areas to either raise extra money or vary existing taxes so that they can raise money or vary the amounts of taxes in an area to invest with full autonomy in their local areas and economies to try to deal with regional inequalities.
Local taxes represent a very small proportion of the total revenue of local government in the UK. Figures indicate approximately 15% of total local revenue is raised by local taxes in the country, compared with 60% in Sweden, 45% in Italy, 48% in France, 40% in Germany and 52% in Spain. Even with this Bill, local government in the UK will still be dependent on inter-governmental transfers. Approximately 67% of local government revenue in the UK was in this form of government grants. This compares with only 31% in Sweden, 33% in Spain, 40% in Italy, 37% in Germany and 25% in France.
At the city or combined authority level, the difference becomes even more apparent, particularly in comparison to other world cities. More than 73% of the West Midlands combined authority’s revenue and almost 69% of London’s revenue come from central government transfers. This is compared with Frankfurt at 13%, Berlin at 33%, New York City at 26%, Madrid at 32%, Paris at 16% and Tokyo at 12%. The lack of any significant financial autonomy is apparent. We are the most centrally fiscally controlled nation in the western world.
As I pointed out at Second Reading, in England
“only two property-based taxes are the levers that local politicians”—[Official Report,17/1/23; col. 1756.]
have. For one of those, council tax, a ceiling is set here in this national Parliament. For business rates, again, the valuation amount is done centrally. There are very few levers any local government can have full autonomy over here in the UK. In France, local areas have nine taxes; in Germany there are more than 12; and in New York the figure is 22. The OECD has reported that, for regional and local government to be really effective and deal with regional inequalities, local areas need to have the fiscal powers, with a split of taxes and levies based on 60% property and 40% non-property.
Again, the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands combined authority is seeking a role in VAT and wants the proportion that can be held and raised to be discussed locally. Other types of revenue that are raised and varied at local level in other countries include the real estate levy, refuse levy, sewer levy, pollution levy and levies for the use of municipal land, as well as tourist levies, among others. In Germany, income tax is shared and distributed across the three levels of government. The share of the tax is not the same for every level of government, with municipal shares being the smallest. However, the principle of shared use and local autonomy over the money that is devolved is baked into how that income tax is spent. The local business tax is the most important source of revenue for local municipalities in Germany. Self-employed persons, including doctors and accountants, are exempt from it. The tax is calculated on company annual profits in the area and municipal involvement is in the tax multiplier.
I am not suggesting that all of these can or should be used here in the UK, but they are examples of what can be done when there is real political will to unleash the opportunities for local areas’ social, economic and environmental potential and to reduce regional inequalities. This can be achieved only when pinned to real fiscal devolution. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply on the Government’s thinking on this issue, not just on spending decentralisation and structural changes. I beg to move.

Lord Young of Cookham: My Lords, I want to make a brief contribution to this debate, because it goes to the heart of the discussion about whether we believe in decentralisation and about the role of local government in a decentralised country.
The levelling up White Paper says:
“We’ll usher in a revolution in local democracy.”
Later on, it states that local leaders in other countries have
“much greater revenue-raising powers”,
a point that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has just made. As I said at Second Reading, there is nothing about greater revenue-raising powers in the Bill, and the probing amendment that we have just heard moved puts that right by initiating a broader discussion.
I welcome some of the announcements in the Budget about devolving more powers to mayoral authorities and allowing local authorities to retain more of the business rates, but devolving greater ability to spend central government money and keeping more of their own money is not actually the move towards a more self-sufficient, independent and confident local government that many of us would like to see.
I take this opportunity to briefly restate a suggestion that I made in January. Over the next 10 years, some £25 billion in fuel duty will disappear as we all buy electric vehicles, and the revenue foregone will be met by road pricing, now made possible by in-car technology —a transition that successive Governments have ducked but, I suspect, will not be able to duck much longer. However, that revenue from road pricing should not go to the Treasury or central government; it should complement the existing revenue from parking and congestion charges, where it would logically sit, and go to the larger units of local government which we have been debating today. That would give local government greater autonomy and a sounder basis for local taxation than the increasingly discredited and out-of-date council tax.
There are other ways of raising local revenue, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, touched on a few. However, in replying to this debate, I wonder whether my noble friend can show just a little bit of ankle on the Government’s thinking—whether they are really interested in empowering genuine local democracy by giving the sort of powers implied in this amendment.

Lord Jackson of Peterborough: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to this very good and interesting probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Young, who I know has great expertise in local government. We represented different parts of the London Borough of Ealing in different capacities over many years.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has not compared apples with apples but apples with pears. We are a unitary state—we are not a federal state like Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy or France, where they have regional government and a culture of accretion of power to the local level. Therefore, we have to have some central sanction and control of the disbursal of funds. So I do not think that the noble Lord is necessarily comparing the situation that we are in wholly accurately.
However, the noble Lord makes a very astute point about the hoarding of power, particularly financial power, by the Treasury. Any Minister will tell you that, over the years, the Treasury has not wanted to give power away and has wanted to bring in power. The noble Lord is absolutely right that far too much of the funding of core local services is in effect subject to the begging-bowl approach, as enunciated by Andy Street, the executive mayor of the West Midlands.
The problem with the situation that we now have—the disparity of local councils being responsible to their electorate for decisions, in effect, taken centrally—is  that central government of whatever party is in power gets the income in and can make those judgments based on its manifesto, but it is local councillors and officers who are accountable and often take the brickbats for failures. For instance, many people have argued for many years about residential real estate investment trusts leveraging private sector money to provide new, good-quality housing for young people in particular. The Treasury has never really advanced that properly, and local government could be very much involved in it. Social care is another area. All Governments should look at tax breaks for providing extra care facilities—in terms of nutrition, housing, exercise and so on—for old people from the age of 60 all the way through to death, as many countries have across the world. That is an example of a central government policy that could also help local government.
I have great sympathy for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I hope there is further debate on it. It cannot be right that we cannot follow other modern liberal democracies such as the United States where local authorities and mayors have the capacity, for instance, to raise funds for the issuance of bonds, local infrastructure and capital projects. We have very restrictive financial and legal rules in this country that prevent us doing the same. On that basis, we have begun a good debate and I look to my noble friends on the Front Bench to run with it and, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, show some ankle, as it is long overdue.

Lord Shipley: My Lords, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, we have begun the debate. That is the intention of this probing amendment, because we must have it.
Today’s Budget decentralises—but does not devolve—some powers, although not fiscal ones, to combined authorities, which is welcome but comparatively minor. In other words, if a combined authority was able to adjust a block grant and make different decisions on how to commit expenditure from it, that would be welcome. However, it is not a fiscal policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, it would be helpful if the Government could explain their thinking on devolving real fiscal powers.
I would pick up the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on one statement. He said that we are not a unitary state. That would be hard to explain in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, and it goes to the heart of the problem as I see it. Substantial devolved powers, including fiscal ones, reside in Scotland, Wales and, theoretically, Northern Ireland that do not apply in England. Yet England is a country of 56 million people. It is far too big to operate out of centralised control in Whitehall, but there is a very strong argument for saying that, in terms of Treasury control and the Government’s desire to do things on a hub and spoke model in which all the financial resources are controlled in London, England is a unitary state.
I want to add one thing to the excellent contribution from my noble friend Lord Scriven and the other contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, which I really appreciated. Can the Government explain why  Scotland and Wales can have fiscal powers but no constituent part of England is permitted to have them? That is the nub of the problem, and it is why starting the debate on this issue is very important.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I rise to add to the political breadth of this debate and to offer Green support for the introduction of this amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley. Localism is at the absolute heart of Green politics, but I think we have seen right across your Lordships’ Chamber a great desire for an end in England to the incredible concentration of power and resources in Westminster.
It is noteworthy that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, cited the Tory Mayor of the West Midlands. I will cite a 2020 report from the Local Government Association entitled Fiscal Devolution, and I should declare at this point that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The foreword of that report, written by the then Conservative chair of the Local Government Association People and Places Board, says that greater fiscal freedom is “crucial” for “genuine devolution”. So that is another Conservative voice adding to the voices we have heard from around your Lordships’ Chamber.
To pick up the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, some of the comparisons made have been with federal states, which are quite different from England. The report, however, looks extensively at the Netherlands, which is much more comparable, and how its model of local tax-raising powers is used to meet local needs. It is worth thinking about: we do not want a race to the bottom—certainly the Greens do not—but we could see a race to the top. There is increasingly huge competition for human resources—for people—and to be a desirable, attractive, healthy place to live. We could see a real race to the top if local councils had the power to raise funds by themselves and use them according to their own preferences.
It is interesting that we are conducting this debate on the day of the Budget. About an hour ago, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities issued a press release entitled “Levelling up at heart of Budget”. It trumpets investment zones, in respect of which Westminster is to decide where the money will go; it trumpets levelling-up partnerships, in respect of which Westminster is to decide where the money will go. Westminster is very much keeping control of the purse strings. This is not any kind of devolution of power or resources. Those two things have to go together; otherwise, devolution is meaningless.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley for raising this important part of the levelling-up agenda. I of course also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for linking it to the estimable White Paper on levelling up which, in many ways, has pointed to the importance of full devolution being equated with autonomy over local funding.
At the moment—I have probably said this before in the Chamber—we have the delegation of powers and funding from the centre to local government, be it  combined authorities or local councils. This is therefore an important debate because, if we really want to be on the path to devolution, we have to address the issue of more autonomy and fiscal powers for local government.
The Minister may wish to pause at this point and take time over the weekend to refer to a House of Commons report that called for more autonomy and fiscal powers for local government. To be fair, it is 10 years old but sometimes, these big changes take a long time. It was published by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which was of course all-party. I draw the Minister’s attention to two elements of the conclusion, and I hope she will then have time to read more of it:
“Power and finance must go together if local government is to become an equal partner… any attempt to make the relationship between central and local government more balanced would be meaningless without giving local government its own source of revenue… to achieve fully the potential of localism, a key plank of the Government’s policy platform, local government requires financial freedoms.”
The report stated that the Government, under the same political colours as now, should consider giving local authorities in England a share of the existing income tax for England. The committee did not propose a change in income tax rates, but:
“The concept of tax transparency would allow local people to see more clearly what their taxes pay for locally and encourage them to hold local councils to account for their expenditure.”
I agree. There is obviously much more in that report.
The debate here is about having real devolution. If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can have it, why not Yorkshire, the population of which is bigger than each of them?

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage: Why not Hertfordshire, with a population of 1.2 million people? I join the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Young, for drawing us back to the White Paper and the ambition contained therein. One of the key themes of discussion on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill so far has been the missed opportunity to tackle some of the critical financial issues that, in my view, are holding local government back from playing as full a part as it can in delivering the Bill’s stated agenda and missions. There is a significant lack of ambition in not taking this further, described by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, as the elephant in the room. The noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, rightly highlighted that a key aspect of this is the extent to which the Government seek to reduce the current chronic overcentralisation of decision-making in the UK by empowering CCAs with enhanced fiscal powers. A great deal more could be done in that regard.
In the probing and thoughtful report referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the LGA carried out a comparative study of fiscal devolution in the UK, Holland, Germany and Switzerland. It concluded that the UK should be working with local government to explore the full extent of fiscal devolution and what it could add to ensure that authorities have the strongest financial muscle to deliver what they know their areas most need. Commenting on the Netherlands, for example, the report says that
“fiscal freedom means that the broad suite of local taxes available to Dutch municipalities, and their tendency to collaborate cross borders, gives local government more placemaking levers while  
That goes right to the heart of this argument.
Even with the so-called trail-blazer authorities in Manchester and the West Midlands, one often gets the impression that achieving the fiscal freedoms they feel they need to serve their communities is like getting blood out of a stone. In previous sessions we commented frequently on the regressive, unhelpful and expensive method of creating multiple funding pots that means councils have to waste their precious funds pulling bids together.
If the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, were adopted, or something very similar to it, it would set into legislation the devolution of fiscal powers that, in my view, should always have been in the Bill. On Budget Day, it is important to say that no one in local government believes that a magic money tree is coming our way. I quote the LGA report again:
“Fiscal devolution entails the same suite of local taxes as we currently have in the UK, except with a higher level of devolution of central taxes. Unlike with fiscal freedom, this would not necessitate the introduction of ‘new’ taxes, but rather a reconsideration of the obligations and duties of each level of government. If fiscal devolution deals were done on the basis of local need for finance, following this German model would mean local authorities could fund their own care services in line with their own requirements.”
Europe also benefits from federalised banking institutions. How much more ambitious could local government be if that were the case here?
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to all finance being controlled from London. I am pleased to say that, in Wales, the Labour Government have already developed this and are making great strides in developing local banking institutions. Incidentally, Wales is also undertaking a comprehensive review of council tax.
Earlier this week a Question was asked in your Lordships’ House on the huge potential of pension funds in contributing to fiscal devolution. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke about the extent to which local government and local decision-making is controlled by national finance, with council tax set by Parliament, business rates set by the Treasury and even rents set by DLUHC. That does not make any sense. It is a nonsense, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, to end up needing a pothole fund. When that announcement was made earlier today in the Budget, my first comment was, “Why don’t you fund local government properly? Then we could fix our own potholes.”
These revenue-raising powers are important to local government. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly pointed at self-sufficient, independent and confident local government, and finding ways of delivering that through a different fiscal settlement. That is really important. We are not a federal state, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, but surely an aim of the Bill must be to create the kind of state where we can have a much more effective system of fiscal devolution, with local government having the freedoms to fund itself properly.

Lord Jackson of Peterborough: The noble Baroness is making a very good point, but she will no doubt agree with me that sometimes things go wrong— for instance in the recent experiences in Slough and Thurrock —with inappropriate spending or error. In the absence of the Audit Commission, which I remind noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches was abolished under the coalition Government, surely there must be some sanction at central government for inappropriate expenditure. It may be just incompetence, and not even at a criminal level. In the absence of an equivalent to the National Audit Office for local government, there must be ways for Ministers to exercise discretion on financial issues in local government on behalf of taxpayers.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage: I do not disagree that audit is required. We debated that earlier on the Bill. The authorities mentioned are Conservative authorities, as in Northampton, where my good friends in Corby lost their council because of the actions of a council of another political persuasion. That is a political point, which I probably should not make here.
A proper consideration of the role of further fiscal powers, with full engagement of local government— I am not suggesting that this is done to us because it would go against all the principles that we are talking about—could provide the basis for an empowered, innovative and dynamic shift for CCAs and their constituent members, sitting alongside the completion of the fair funding review, which has been outstanding for years now and which we have discussed previously.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, Amendment 128 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, relates to the potential fiscal powers of combined county authorities, although we were slowly moving into a debate on English devolution, which we should leave for another time.
As set out in the levelling-up White Paper, level 3 devolution deal areas can look to finance local initiatives for residents and businesses. These include regeneration through a mayoral precept on council tax, and supplements on business rates. The Government are already considering putting powers in the hands of local people through greater fiscal freedoms and are exploring this further fiscal devolution, initially through the trail-blazer devolution deals with Greater Manchester and the West Midlands combined authorities. Negotiations are ongoing and progressing well. It says in my notes that they are expected to conclude in early 2023, so I assume that it will be very soon.
Clauses 16 and 17 already provide the mechanism for such fiscal powers to be conferred on to a combined county authority where the Secretary of State considers that doing so meets the statutory tests—that is important; I think it is what my noble friend Lord Jackson was talking about—where the area consents, and where Parliament approves. I therefore suggest that there is no need for an addition to Clause 48, which relates to the boundaries of a CCA’s general powers.
I want to answer the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on these small competitive funding pots. I know that noble Lords are particularly concerned  about the ones for levelling up. The Government recognise the inefficiencies in and complexity of the decision-making and reporting burdens that result from this number of local funding pots and the strings attached to them. I have to say, some competitive funding for individual pots can be a good thing; for example, it can support innovation. We recognise that a number of different funds have become difficult for councils to navigate and deliver. As the Levelling-Up Secretary told the committee last year, ideally, we would like to move to a situation where there are fewer funding streams; we are working on that.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that, when the Bill passes, I will certainly read the report. However, at the moment, all my reading time is taken up with the Bill.
I hope that the explanation I have given reassures noble Lords that the Bill already captures the amendment’s intent, and that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Scriven: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has shown that this is not a party-political issue, but an issue for those of us who believe that you cannot deal with levelling up unless you give real fiscal powers to local areas that require them, to be able to make autonomous decisions in the locality on where to invest and where to make the biggest changes. It is also about stopping this particular view in England that local areas have to look to Westminster to be able to make decisions that many local areas across the vast majority of the western world, whether they are federal or not, can take.
I reiterate what my noble friend Lord Shipley said: we are not a unitary state. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, fiscal devolution exists. We are talking predominantly about 56 million people in England, where fiscal devolution is totally off the table at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, was quite right to point out that, in itself, the Bill does not bring about fiscal devolution; it brings about departmental decentralisation, with predetermined spending limits being able to be made a little differently at the local level. Everything that the Minister said reinforces that view. Nothing in the Bill significantly gives further fiscal devolution to local areas if they so wish. In fact, she made the same mistake again: she talked about the trail-blazers in the West Midlands and Greater Manchester that have been announced today. As welcome as they are, they are not fiscal devolution. They are the decentralisation of departmental spending decisions; that is the fundamental issue.
This debate, on all sides of the Chamber, has stipulated that the Government are not going far enough and the Bill does not go far enough. We may have to return to this on Report, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 128 withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed.
Clauses 49 to 52 agreed.

  
Clause 53: Guidance
  

Amendments 129 and 130 not moved.
Clause 53 agreed.
Clause 54 agreed.

  
Schedule 4: Combined County Authorities: Consequential Amendments

Amendments 131 to 154

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: Moved by Baroness Scott of Bybrook
131: Schedule 4, page 266, line 6, at end insert—“Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56)A1 In section 69(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (interpretation), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Trustee Investments Act 1961 (c. 62)A2 In section 11(4)(a) of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 (local authority investment schemes), after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Government (Records) Act 1962 (c. 56)A3 The Local Government (Records) Act 1962 is amended as follows.A4 In section 2(6) (acquisition and deposit of records), after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, to a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.A5 In section 8(1) (interpretation), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (c. 88)A6 In section 28(5)(a) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (retention or resumption of land required for public purposes), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Transport Act 1968 (c. 73)A7 The Transport Act 1968 is amended as follows.A8 (1) Section 9 (Areas, Authorities and Executives) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)—(a) in paragraph (a)(i), after “a combined authority area” insert “or a combined county authority area”;(b) after paragraph (ab) insert—“(ac) any reference to a “combined county authority” is to an authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 for an area which is or includes a metropolitan county;(ad) any reference to a “combined county authority area” is to an area for which a combined county authority is established;”;(c) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (ia) insert—“(iaa) in relation to a combined county authority area, the combined county authority;”.(3) In subsection (2), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.  (4) In subsection (3), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(5) In subsection (5) for “or a combined authority area” substitute “a combined authority area or a combined county authority area”.A9 In section 9A (general functions of Authorities and Executives), in each of subsections (3), (5), (6)(a) and (b), (7) and (8), after “combined authority area” insert “, combined county authority area”.A10 (1) Section 10 (general powers of Executives) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (3), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(4) In subsection (5), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A11 In section 10A(1) (further powers of Executives), for “or combined authority area” substitute “, combined authority area or combined county authority area”.A12 In section 12(1) (borrowing powers of Executive), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A13 In section 14(1) (accounts of Executive), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A14 (1) Section 15 (further functions of Authority) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (6), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A15 In section 16(1) (annual report by Authority and Executive), after “combined authority area” insert “, combined county authority area”.A16 (1) Section 20 (special duty with respect to railway passengers) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (2A), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A17 (1) Section 23 (consents of, or directions, by Minister) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (2), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(4) In subsection (3), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A18 In section 56(6) (assistance by Minister or local authority towards expenditure on public transport), after paragraph (bc) insert—“(bd) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”A19 (1) Schedule 5 (Passenger Transport Executives) is amended as follows.(2) In Part 2, in paragraph 2, after “the combined authority area”, in both places it occurs, insert “, the combined county authority area”.(3) In Part 3, in paragraph 11, after “a combined authority area”, insert “, a combined county authority area”.Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969 (c. 2)A20 In section 1(3) of the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969 (provision for grants), for “and a combined authority established under  section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act and a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (c. 57)A21 In section 3(2)(b) of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (employers exempted from insurance), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (c. 39)A22 In section 1(4) of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (provision for grants), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
132: Schedule 4, page 266, line 8, at end insert—“1A “(1) Section 70 (restriction on promotion of Bills for changing local government areas, etc) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.1B In section 80(2)(b) (disqualification for election and holding office as member of local authority), after “combined authority” insert “, combined county authority”.1C In section 85(4) (vacation of office by failure to attend meetings), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.1D In section 86(2) (declaration of vacancy by local authority), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.1E In section 92(7) (proceedings for disqualification)—(a) for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”, and(b) for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.1F In section 99 (meetings and proceedings of local authorities), after “combined authorities,” insert “combined county authorities,”.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts various consequential amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
133: Schedule 4, page 267, line 10, at end insert—“3A In section 138C(1) (application of sections 138A and 138B to other authorities), after paragraph (n) insert—“(na) a combined county authority;”.3B In section 142(1B) (provision of information relating to matters affecting local government), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”.3C (1) Section 146A (joint authorities etc) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)—(a) in the opening words, after “(1ZE)” insert “, (1ZEA)”, and  (b) after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (1ZB), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”.(4) After subsection (1ZE) insert—“(1ZEA) A combined county authority is not to be treated as a local authority for the purposes of section 111 (but see section 47 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023).”3D In section 175(3B) (allowances for attending conferences and meetings), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”.3E In section 176(3) (payment of expenses), for “and a combined authority” substitute “a combined authority and a combined county authority”.3F In section 223(2) (appearance of local authorities in legal proceedings), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3G In section 224(2) (arrangements by principal councils for custody of documents), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.3H In section 225(3) (deposit of documents with proper officer), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.3I In section 228(7A) (inspection of documents), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.3J In section 229(8) (photographic copies of documents) after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3K In section 230(2) (reports and returns), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.3L In section 231(4) (service of notice on local authorities), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3M In section 232(1A) (public notices), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3N In section 233(11) (service of notices by local authorities), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3P In section 234(4) (authentication of documents), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3Q In section 236(1) (procedure for byelaws), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.3R In section 236B(1) (revocation of byelaws), after paragraph (e) insert—“(f) a combined county authority.”3S In section 238 (evidence of byelaws), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.3T In section 239(4A) (power to promote or oppose bills), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts various consequential amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
134: Schedule 4, page 267, line 14, at end insert—“4A In Part 1A of Schedule 12 (meetings and proceedings of joint authorities etc), in paragraph 6A, for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.”   Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts a consequential amendment to Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
135: Schedule 4, page 267, line 14, at end insert—“Employment Agencies Act 1973 (c. 35)4B In section 13(7) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (interpretation), after paragraph (fzc) insert—“(fzd) the exercise by a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 of any of its functions;”Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7)4C The Local Government Act 1974 is amended as follows.4D In section 25(1) (authorities subject to investigation), after paragraph (cf) insert—“(cg) any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”4E (1) Section 26C (referral of complaints by authorities) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (6), after paragraph (f) insert—“(g) in relation to a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, a member of a constituent council of the authority;”(3) After subsection (8) insert—“(9) For the purposes of subsection (6)(g)—(a) a county council is a constituent council of a combined county authority if the area of the county council, or part of that area, is within the area of the combined county authority;(b) a district council is a constituent council of a combined county authority if the area of the district council is within the area of the combined county authority.”Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (c. 37)4F In section 28(6) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (restrictions on disclosure of information), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57)4G In section 44 of the Local Government Act 1976 (interpretation of Part 1), in the definition of “local authority”—(a) in paragraph (a), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”;(b) in paragraph (c), after “section 103 of that Act, insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (c. 80)4H In section 5(3) of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (no statutory tenancy where landlord’s interest belongs to local authority), after paragraph (bbzb) insert—“(bbzc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Rent Act 1977 (c. 42)4I In section 14(1) of the Rent Act 1977 (landlord’s interest belonging to local authority etc), after paragraph (cbc) insert—  “(cbd) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (c. 43)4J In section 3A(8) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (excluded tenancies and licences), after paragraph (ab) insert—“(ac) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65)4K The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as follows.4L In section 2(1) (duty of authorities to publish information), after paragraph (kac) insert—“(kad) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”4M In section 98(8A) (disposal of land at direction of Secretary of State), after paragraph (ezb) insert—“(ezc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”4N In section 99(4) (directions to dispose of land), after paragraph (dbzb) insert—“(dbzc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”4P In section 100(1)(a) (interpretation and extent of Part 10), for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.4Q In Schedule 16 (bodies to whom Part 10 applies), after paragraph 5BZB insert—“5BZBA A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (c. 14)4R In section 4C(4) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (power of senior traffic commissioner to give guidance and directions), in paragraph (e), after “of combined authorities” insert “established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, of combined county authorities established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (c. 67)4S In section 17(4)(a) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (local authority land), in the definition of “local authority”, for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30)4T The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 is amended as follows.4U In section 33(9) (enforceability by local authorities of covenants relating to land)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”;  (b) in paragraph (b), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.4V In section 41(13) (lost and uncollected property), in the definition of “local authority”, after paragraph (ezb) insert—“(ezba) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Stock Transfer Act 1982 (c. 41)4W In Schedule 1 to the Stock Transfer Act 1982 (specified securities), in paragraph 7(2)(a), after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28)4X In section 60(3) of the County Courts Act 1984 (rights of audience), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Government Act 1985 (c. 51)4Y The Local Government Act 1985 is amended as follows.4YA In section 72(5) (accounts and audit), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”4YB In section 73(2) (financial administration), after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Transport Act 1985 (c. 67)4YC The Transport Act 1985 is amended as follows.4YD In section 27A(7)(b) (additional powers where service not operated as registered), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.4YE In section 64(1)(a) (consultation with respect to policies), after “combined authority,” insert “combined county authority,”.4YF In section 93(8)(b) (travel concession schemes), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.4YG In section 106(4) (grants for transport facilities and services), after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) any combined county authority;”.4YH In section 137 (general interpretation), after subsection (5A) insert—“(5B) References in this Act to a combined county authority are references to a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)4YI (1) Section 4 of the Housing Act 1985 (other descriptions of authority) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)(e), after “combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.(3) In subsection (2), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”   Housing Associations Act 1985 (c. 69)4YJ In section 106(1) (minor definitions) of the Housing Associations Act 1985, in the definition of “local authority”—(a) for “and a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act and a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”;(b) after “such a combined authority,” insert “such a combined county authority,”.Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (c. 70)4YK In section 38 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (minor definitions), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Government Act 1986 (c. 10)4YL The Local Government Act 1986 is amended as follows.4YM In section 6(2)(a) (interpretation and application of Part 2), after “a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act,”, and on a new line, insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.4YN In section 9(1)(a) (interpretation and application of Part 3), after “a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009,”, and on a new line, insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (c. 31)4YP In section 58(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (exempt landlords and resident landlords), for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9)4YQ In Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1988 (public supply or works contracts: the public authorities), after the entry for a combined authority established under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, and on a new line, insert “A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.””Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
136: Schedule 4, page 268, line 15, at end insert—“Housing Act 1988 (c. 50)9A The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows.9B In section 74(8) (transfer of land and other property to housing action trusts), after paragraph (fc) insert—“(fd) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”9C In Schedule 1 (tenancies which cannot be assured tenancies), in paragraph 12(2), after paragraph (fb) (and before the “and” at the end of that paragraph) insert—  “(fc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)9D In section 144(2)(a)(i) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security), for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts consequential amendments to the Housing Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
137: Schedule 4, page 268, line 16, at end insert—“9E The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is amended as follows.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment introduces the consequential amendments to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
138: Schedule 4, page 268, line 17, leave out “of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 268, line 16.
139: Schedule 4, page 268, line 20, at end insert—“10A In section 152(2) (interpretation), after paragraph (izb) insert—“(izc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”10B In section 157(6) (periodic payments of grants)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (j), and(b) after paragraph (k) insert—“(l) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”10C (1) Schedule 1 (political balance on local authority committees etc) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 2(1), for “(jb)” substitute “(jba)”.(3) In paragraph 4(1), in paragraph (a) of the definition of “relevant authority”, for “(jb)” substitute “(jba)”.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts consequential amendments to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
140: Schedule 4, page 268, line 20, at end insert—“Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)10D The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.10E In section 252(12) (procedure for making orders), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.10F In Schedule 14 (procedure for footpaths and bridleways orders), in paragraph 1(3), in the definition of “council”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.  Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c. 13)10G In section 54(1)(e)(ii) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (duty to give information), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts consequential amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
141: Schedule 4, page 268, line 37, at end insert—“Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (c. 25)13A In section 1(10) of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (power to provide advice and assistance), after paragraph (dzb) insert—“(dzc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Railways Act 1993 (c. 43)13B The Railways Act 1993 is amended as follows.13C In section 25(1) (public sector operators not to be franchisees)—(a) after paragraph (ca) insert—“(cb) any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(b) in paragraph (d), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.13D In section 149(5) (service of documents), in the definition of “local authority”, for “and a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (c. 40)13E In section 79A of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (meaning of “local authority”: England), after paragraph (mb) insert—“(mc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)13F After section 86B of the Environment Act 1995 insert—“86C Role of combined county authorities in relation to action plans(1) Where a local authority in the area of a combined county authority intends to prepare an action plan it must notify the combined county authority.(2) Where a combined county authority has been given a notification under subsection (1) by a local authority, the combined county authority must, before the end of the relevant period, provide the local authority with proposals for particular measures the combined county authority will take to contribute to the achievement, and maintenance, of air quality standards and objectives in the area to which the plan relates.(3) Where a combined county authority provides proposals under subsection (2), the combined county authority must—  (a) in those proposals, specify a date for each particular measure by which it will be carried out, and(b) as far as is reasonably practicable, carry out those measures by those dates.(4) An action plan prepared by a local authority in the area of a combined county authority must set out any proposals provided to it under subsection (2) (including the dates specified by virtue of subsection (3)(a)).(5) In this section “combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (c. 53)13G In section 3(2) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (ineligible applicants), after paragraph (jc) insert—“(jd) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37)13H In section 17(2) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (duty to consider crime and disorder implications), after “a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;”, and on a new line, insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
142: Schedule 4, page 269, line 5, at end insert—“Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29)14A In section 211(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (public sector operators)—(a) after paragraph (ca) insert—“(cb) any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(b) in paragraph (d), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)14B In Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities), after paragraph 19B insert—“19C A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Transport Act 2000 (c. 38)14C The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.14D In section 108(4) (local transport plans), after paragraph (ca) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(cb) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”14E (1) Section 109 (further provision about local transport plans in England) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2A), in the opening words, for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (2B)—(a) in the opening words, for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”;  (b) in paragraph (a), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”;(c) in paragraph (c), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14F (1) Section 113 (role of metropolitan district councils) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”.(3) in subsection (2A), in each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14G In section 123A(4) (franchising schemes)—(a) after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a mayoral CCA;”;(b) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (e);(c) at the end of paragraph (f) insert “, or(g) a combined county authority which is not a mayoral CCA.”;(d) in the words after paragraph (g), for “(f)” substitute “(g)”.14H In section 123C(2) (consent of the Secretary of State and notice)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a);(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “,(c) the area of a mayoral CCA, or(d) the combined area of two or more mayoral CCAs.”14I In section 123G (response to consultation), after subsection (4) insert—“(5) If a franchising authority are a mayoral CCA, the function of deciding whether to make a proposed franchising scheme is a function of the combined county authority exercisable only by the mayor acting on behalf of the combined county authority (including in a case where the decision is to make a scheme jointly with one or more other franchising authorities).”14J In section 123M (variation of scheme), after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) If a franchising authority are a mayoral CCA, the function of deciding whether to make a proposed variation is a function of the combined county authority exercisable only by the mayor acting on behalf of the combined county authority (including in a case where the decision is to act jointly to vary a scheme).”14K In section 123N (revocation of scheme), after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) If a franchising authority are a mayoral CCA, the function of deciding whether to make a proposed revocation is a function of the combined county authority exercisable only by the mayor acting on behalf of the combined county authority (including in a case where the decision is to act jointly to revoke a scheme).”14L (1) Section 157 (grants to Integrated Transport Authorities and combined authorities) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading, for “and combined authorities” substitute “, combined authorities and combined county authorities”.(3) After subsection (1A) insert—“(1B) The Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants to a combined county authority for the purpose of enabling the authority to carry out any of their functions.”14M (1) Section 162 (interpretation of Part 2) is amended as follows.  (2) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—““mayoral CCA” has the meaning given by section 25(8) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(3) After subsection (5A) insert—“(5B) In this Part “combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”14N (1) Section 163 (road user charging schemes: preliminary) is amended as follows.(2) In each of subsections (3)(bb), (3)(cc) and (4A), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.(3) After subsection (5A) insert—“(5B) In this Part “combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”14P (1) Section 164 (local charging schemes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3)—(a) in the opening words, for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (b), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14Q (1) Section 165 (joint local charging schemes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3)—(a) in the opening words, for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (b), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14R In section 165A(1)(b) (joint local-ITA charging schemes), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14S (1) Section 166 (joint local-London charging schemes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3)—(a) in the opening words, for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (b), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14T (1) Section 166A (joint ITA-London charging schemes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)(b), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3)(b), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.14U In section 167(2)(b) (trunk road charging schemes), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”.14V In section 168(2) (charging schemes to be made by order)—  (a) after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”;(b) for “or the combined authority” substitute “, the combined authority or the combined county authority”.14W (1) Section 170 (charging schemes: consultation and inquiries) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1A)(b), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (7)(a), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.14X In section 177A(1) (power to require information), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.14Y In section 193(1) (guidance), after “combined authorities” insert “, combined county authorities”.14YA In section 194 (information), in each of subsections (1), (2) and (6), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.14YB In section 198(1) (interpretation of Part 3), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” has the meaning given by section 163 (5B);”.14YC (1) Schedule 12 (road user charging and workplace parking levy: financial provisions) is amended as follows.(2) In each of paragraphs 2(4), 3(2) and 7(5)(c), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.(3) In paragraph 8(3)(aa), for “and combined authorities” substitute “, combined authorities and combined county authorities”.(4) In paragraph 8(4)(aa), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.(5) In paragraph 11A—(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for “or combined authority’s” substitute “, combined authority’s or combined county authority’s”;(b) in sub-paragraph (4), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.(6) In each of paragraphs 11B(1) and 11C(1) and (3), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
143: Schedule 4, page 270, line 8, at end insert—“Courts Act 2003 (c. 39)18A In section 41(6) of the Courts Act 2003 (disqualification of lay justices who are members of local authorities), after paragraph (eb) insert—“(ec) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c. 5)18B The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.18C In section 27A (default powers), in the heading and in the section, after “combined authority” insert “, combined county authority”.18D (1) Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London, combined authority or county council) is amended as follows.  (2) In the heading, after “combined authority” insert “, combined county authority”.(3) After paragraph 7 insert—“Default powers exercisable by combined county authority7ZA In this Schedule—“combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;“constituent planning authority” in relation to a combined county authority, means—(a) a county council, metropolitan district council or non-metropolitan district council which is the local planning authority for an area within the area of the combined county authority, or(b) a joint committee established under section 29 whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined county authority.7ZB If the Secretary of State—(a) thinks that a constituent planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and(b) invites the combined county authority to prepare or revise the document,the combined county authority may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document.7ZC (1) This paragraph applies where a development plan document is prepared or revised by a combined county authority under paragraph 7ZB.(2) The combined county authority must hold an independent examination.(3) The combined county authority—(a) must publish the recommendations and reasons of the person appointed to hold the examination, and(b) may also give directions to the constituent planning authority in relation to publication of those recommendations and reasons.(4) The combined county authority may—(a) approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications, as a local development document, or(b) direct the constituent planning authority to consider adopting the document by resolution of the authority as a local development document.7ZD (1) Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 7ZC(2)—(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the combined county authority, and(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).(2) The combined county authority must give reasons for anything they do in pursuance of paragraph 7ZB or 7ZC(4).(3) The constituent planning authority must reimburse the combined county authority—(a) for any expenditure that the combined county authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 5 and which the constituent planning authority failed or omitted to do as mentioned in that paragraph;(b) for any expenditure that the combined county authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 7ZC(2).   (4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the combined county authority may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the authority considers just between the authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”(4) In paragraph 8—(a) in sub-paragraph (1), after paragraph (b) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(ba) under paragraph 7ZB by a combined county authority,”;(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(a)—(i) after “6(4)(a)” insert “, 7ZC(4)(a)”;(ii) after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”;(c) in sub-paragraph (3)(a), after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”;(d) in sub-paragraph (5), after “6(4)(a)” insert “, 7ZC(4)(a)”;(e) in sub-paragraph (7)—(i) in paragraph (b), after “6(4)(a)” insert “, 7ZC(4)(a)”;(ii) in the words after paragraph (b), after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”.(5) In paragraph 9(3), after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”.(6) In paragraph 12, after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”.(7) In paragraph 13(1), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”.Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (c. 21)18E In section 1 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (fire and rescue authorities), for subsection (5) substitute—“(5) This section is also subject to—(a) an order under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 which transfers the functions of a fire and rescue authority to a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act;(b) an order under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 which transfers the functions of a fire and rescue authority to a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of that Act.”Children Act 2004 (c. 31)18F In section 50(7) of the Children Act 2004 (intervention - England), after “combined authority”, in each place where it occurs, insert “or combined county authority”.Railways Act 2005 (c. 14)18G In section 33(2) of the Railways Act 2005 (closure requirements), after paragraph (da) insert—“(db) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Childcare Act 2006 (c. 21)18H In section 15 of the Childcare Act 2006 (powers of Secretary of State to secure proper performance), after subsection (6A) insert—“(6B) If any functions of an English local authority under this Part are exercisable by a combined county authority by virtue of section 16 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—(a) a reference in any of subsections (3) to (6) to an English local authority includes a reference to the combined county authority, and  (b) a reference in those subsections to functions under this Part is, in relation to the combined county authority, to be read as a reference to those functions so far as exercisable by the combined county authority.”Education and Inspections Act 2006 (c. 40)18I (1) Section 123 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (education and training to which Chapter 3 of Part 8 applies) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (ea) insert—“(eb) further education for persons aged 19 or over which is wholly or partly funded by a combined county authority;”.(3) For subsection (5), substitute—“(5) In this section—“combined authority” means a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;“combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.””Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
144: Schedule 4, page 270, line 11, leave out paragraph 20 and insert—“20 In section 7A(2) (exercise of Secretary of State's public health functions), after paragraph (d) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(da) a combined county authority,”.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment replaces the consequential amendment to section 7A of the National Health Service Act 2006 as a result of the substitution of that section by the Health and Care Act 2022.
145: Schedule 4, page 270, line 16, at end insert—“20A In section 12ZB(7) (procurement regulations), in the definition of “relevant authority”, after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a combined county authority;”.20B In section 13UA(2) (guidance about joint appointments)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b), and(b) at the end of paragraph (c) insert “, or(d) one or more relevant NHS body and one or more combined county authority.””Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts a further consequential amendment to the National Health Service Act 2006 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
146: Schedule 4, page 270, line 17, leave out paragraphs 21 and 22Member's explanatory statementThis amendment removes the consequential amendments to sections 13ZA and 14Z3A of the National Health Service Act 2006 as a result of the repeals of those sections by the Health and Care Act 2022.
147: Schedule 4, page 270, line 31, at end insert—“22A In section 65Z5(1) (joint working and delegation arrangements), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) a combined county authority.”22B In section 65Z6(1) (joint committees and pooled funds), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) a combined county authority.””   Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts further consequential amendments to the National Health Service Act 2006 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
148: Schedule 4, page 271, line 33, at end insert—“Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 (c. 13)25A In section 9(6)(b) of the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 (variation of reimbursement etc), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (c. 28)25B The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 is amended as follows.25C In section 23(1) (definitions for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 1), in the definition of “public body”, after paragraph (g) insert—“(h) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”25D In section 104(2) (application of Chapter 1 of Part 5: partner authorities), after paragraph (ib) insert—“(ic) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts consequential amendments to the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
149: Schedule 4, page 273, line 25, at end insert—“30A “(1) Section 102E (power to establish STBs) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (5), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a combined county authority;”.(3) In subsection (6), after paragraph (a) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(aa) the area of a combined county authority,”.30B In section 102F(7) (requirements in connection with regulations under section 102E), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a combined county authority;”.30C In section 102G(10) (constitution of STBs), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) in the case of a combined county authority, are the mayor for the area of the combined county authority (if there is one) and those members of the authority who are appointed from among the elected members of the authority's constituent councils (see section 8(4)(b) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023);”30D In section 102I(7) (transport strategy of an STB), after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) a combined county authority;”.30E In section 102J(7) (exercise of local transport functions), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a combined county authority;”.30F In section 102U, at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a body established as a combined county authority under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”   Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts further consequential amendments to the Local Transport Act 2008 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
150: Schedule 4, page 273, line 28, at end insert—“31A In section 35(2) (mutual insurance: supplementary), after paragraph (r) insert—“(s) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.””Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts a further consequential amendment to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
151: Schedule 4, page 274, line 24, at end insert—“Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (c. 22)37A The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 is amended as follows.37B (1) Section 100 (provision of financial resources) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1AA) insert—“(1AB) The Secretary of State may secure the provision of financial resources under this subsection (whether or not the resources could be secured under subsection (1)) to any of the persons mentioned in subsection (1) in respect of functions under this Part that are exercisable by a combined county authority by virtue of regulations made under section 17(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”(3) In subsection (5), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”37C (1) Section 122 (sharing of information for education and training purposes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (fb) insert—“(fc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;(fd) a person providing services to a combined county authority;”.(3) In subsection (5)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (c), and(b) at the end of paragraph (d) insert “, or(e) any function of a combined authority under Part 4 that is exercisable by it by virtue of regulations made under section 17(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (c. 2)37D The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 is amended as follows.37E In section 40(6) (access to local government meetings and documents), after paragraph (ja) insert—“(jb) a combined county authority,”.37F In section 44(1) (interpretation of Act), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”37G In Schedule 2, after paragraph 28 insert—“28ZA A combined county authority.””   Member's explanatory statementThis amendment makes consequential amendments to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 and the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
152: Schedule 4, page 274, line 25, at end insert—“37H The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 is amended as follows.37I (1) Section 1 (devolution: annual report) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “this Act” insert “or Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.(3) In subsection (2)—(a) in paragraph (c), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (e), after “combined authorities” insert “, combined county authorities”.(4) In subsection (4), after the definition of “combined authority” insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts further consequential amendments to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
153: Schedule 4, page 274, line 26, leave out “of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 274, line 25.
154: Schedule 4, page 275, line 13, at end insert—Policing and Crime Act 2017 (c. 3)39 The Policing and Crime Act 2017 is amended as follows.40 In section 3 (collaboration agreements: specific restrictions), after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) A combined county authority that exercises the functions of a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 16 or 17 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 may only enter into a collaboration agreement where the functions of the authority to which the agreement relates are functions of a fire and rescue authority that the combined county authority is entitled to exercise.”41 In section 5(5) (collaboration agreements: definitions)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b);(b) after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) a combined county authority that exercises the functions of a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 16 or 17 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, or(e) an elected mayor who exercises the functions of a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 28 of that Act.”Technical and Further Education Act 2017 (c. 19)42 The Technical and Further Education Act 2017 is amended as follows.43 In Schedule 3 (conduct of education administration: statutory corporations)—(a) in paragraph 13(b), in the inserted paragraph (ab), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph 38(c)—  (i) after the definition of “combined authority”, insert—“““combined county authority” means an authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”,”(ii) in the definition of “director of children’s services”, in paragraph (b), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”.44 In Schedule 4 (conduct of education administration: companies)—(a) in paragraph 12(b), in the inserted paragraph (ab), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph 36(c)—(i) after the definition of “combined authority”, insert—“““combined county authority” means an authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”,”(ii) in the definition of “director of children’s services”, in paragraph (b), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”.Bus Services Act 2017 (c. 21)45 In section 22(3) of the Bus Services Act 2017 (bus companies: limitation of powers of authorities in England), in the definition of “relevant authority”, after paragraph (c) insert—“(ca) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Digital Economy Act 2017 (c. 30)46 The Digital Economy Act 2017 is amended as follows.47 In Schedule 4 (public service delivery: specified persons for the purposes of section 35), after paragraph 14 insert—“14A A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”48 In Schedule 5 (public service delivery: specified persons for the purposes of sections 36 and 37), after paragraph 8 insert—“8A A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”49 In Schedule 6 (public service delivery: specified persons for the purposes of sections 36 and 37), after paragraph 7 insert—“7A A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Data Protection Act 2018 (c.12)50 In Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018 (special categories of personal data and criminal convictions etc data), in paragraph 23(3), after paragraph (h) insert—“(ha) a mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (c. 18)51 (1) Section 12 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (duty to consider making regulations under section 11(1)(a) on request from mayor) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (7)—(a) in paragraph (a), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (i) insert—   “(ia) in the case of the area of a combined county authority, the mayor for the area elected in accordance with section 25(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(3) In subsection (8), in the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 (c. 21)52 The Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows.53 In section 1(7) (views of relevant authority in relation to local skills improvement plan), after paragraph (a) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(aa) a mayoral CCA within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (combined county authorities) (see section 25(8) of that Act),”54 (1) Section 4 (interpretation of sections 1 to 4) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(3) In subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) a combined county authority”.55 In section 19(2) (meaning of “relevant provider”), after paragraph (g) insert—“(ga) a combined county authority;”.56 In section 20(7) (meaning of “funding authority”), after paragraph (c) insert—“(ca) a combined county authority;”.57 In section 21(2) (interpretation of sections 19 to 21), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Health and Care Act 2022 (c. 31)58 In section 180(2) of the Health and Care Act 2022 (licensing of cosmetic procedures), in the definition of “local authority”, after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Elections Act 2022 (c. 37)59 The Elections Act 2022 is amended as follows.60 In section 37(1) (interpretation of Part 5), in the definition of “relevant elective office”, after paragraph (f) insert—“(fa) mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”61 In section 45(9) (meaning of “relevant election”), after paragraph (g) insert—“(ga) an election for the return of a mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”62 (1) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 (illegal practices) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (iv), and(b) after sub-paragraph (v) (but before the “and” at the end of that sub-paragraph) insert “or  (vi) an election for the return of a mayor for the area of a combined county authority,”.(3) In sub-paragraph (4)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (b), and(b) at the end of paragraph (c) insert “, and“(d) as it applies in relation to an election for the return of a mayor for the area of a combined county authority by virtue of regulations under paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 2 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”(4) After sub-paragraph (5) insert—“(6) In this paragraph “combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”63 In paragraph 12(4) of Schedule 8 (voting and candidacy rights of EU citizens: transitional provision), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.
Amendments 131 to 154 agreed.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed.
Clauses 55 to 60 agreed.

  
Clause 61: Membership of combined authority
  

Amendments 155 and 156 not moved.
Clause 61 agreed.
Clauses 62 to 70 agreed.

Amendment 157

Baroness Pinnock: Moved by Baroness Pinnock
157: After Clause 70, insert the following new Clause—“Local authorities to be allowed to choose their own voting system(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide that local authorities may choose the voting system used for local elections in their areas.(2) When determining whether to seek to introduce a new voting system a local authority must have regard to the benefits of reinvigorating local democracy in its area.(3) Regulations under this section must provide that local authorities may choose to elect councillors—(a) by thirds, or(b) on an all-out basis.(4) Regulations under this section must provide that local authorities may choose to elect councillors using—(a) first-past-the-post;(b) alternative vote;(c) supplementary vote;(d) single transferable vote;(e) the additional member system;(f) any other system that may be prescribed in the regulations.(5) Regulations under this section may make provision about—  (a) how a local authority may go about seeking to change its voting system,(b) the decision-making process for such a change,(c) consultation, and(d) requirements relating to approval by the local electorate.”Member's explanatory statementThis new Clause would enable local authorities to choose what voting system they use for local elections.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, it is by pure chance that this debate follows so neatly after the one we have just had about fiscal devolution and fiscal powers for devolved authorities. Unless we turbocharge our local democracy—and there is much in the Bill that takes powers away from local democracy—we will still be in the realm of “Westminster knows best” and “Westminster holds all the strings”, and we will simply become a subset of Westminster decision-making. Amendment 157 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Harris is all about improving the local democracy available to local councils and elected mayors.
I start by referring back to the long debates this House had on voter ID. To those of us who were suggesting that it might not be the best idea, the Government’s argument all along—in some cases, their only argument—was that it had worked in Northern Ireland for many years, and if it worked there it will work here. I want to apply that principle to this amendment.
The voting systems for local government in Northern Ireland are not first past the post but single transferable vote. If it works in Northern Ireland, as it has for many years, it can work here. But single transferable vote is not the only method of improving our local democracy and making sure that more voices are elected from more parts of our communities to take part in local decision-making. I will briefly go through some of the other systems and show the Committee how these are already in use in different parts of the country.
We will start with the additional member system. It is used for elections of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd and the London Assembly. This is a mixed system—some are elected by first past the post and others from a list system—but the outcome is more proportional to the votes as expressed by the electorate. So we already have an additional member system, not first past the post, in big elections in this country, and it works.
The second method is single transferable vote, as I have already described. It is a simple preferential voting system, just using a ranked system of one, two, three. It is used in Northern Ireland local government and the Assembly, and in Scottish local government elections. It works there; why can we not use it in English local council elections?
The third option is the alternative vote, which again ranks candidates, and this more proportional system is used in this very House to elect hereditaries if there is a vacancy. If there is more than one vacancy for hereditary Peers, the single transferable vote system is used. If it is good enough here, surely it can be good enough for local council elections in England. Let us be more like Northern Ireland.
The next system that could be adopted is the supplementary vote. Prior to its recent abolition, it was used to elect Mayors of London, the directly elected mayors in combined authorities, and police and crime commissioners. Very simply, it gives you two votes and two columns, and you can just stick your cross in one of each.
Those are all the systems that we can use in multiple ways. Mature democracies across the world seek to elect representatives in proportion to the expressed views of their electors. I do not like using this comparison, but I remind the Committee that the only other country that uses first past the post is Belarus, with which I am not sure we want to be aligned too much.
Democracy, and especially local democracy, works best when a range of views are heard. That is why all but a minority of democracies use some form of proportional voting system—except England, the home of democracy. The result could be the end of one-party councils or those with very large majorities; I include Liberal Democrat large-majority councils in this too. It is not healthy not to have different voices being heard when local councils make decisions.
Finally, the amendment proposes that local authorities are able to choose a different voting system. Let us see them as local pilots, and see if they work—a chance to understand the impact of such a change. I return to my starting point. Northern Ireland is promoted as the standard for voter ID. The amendment proposes that Northern Ireland be seen as a standard for local government elections, along with Wales and Scotland. If levelling up is to be a reality, and in order to narrow growing inequalities, then one of the best ways we can do that is to get more voices around the table, bring forth ideas and innovation, and drive change for everybody’s sake. I beg to move.

Baroness Fookes: The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Pinnock has just said. I put my name to her amendment because in my rapidly disappearing district council of Richmondshire a motion was almost unanimously agreed to support a system of voting proportionately. It was proposed and seconded by two of my colleagues on that council, Councillors Richard Good and Clive World. It is almost unheard of to have a council in Richmondshire vote together on an issue as contentious as this, so I was delighted when they agreed to forward a letter to the Government requesting a move away from the first past the post system to a fairer and more representative way of voting.
As it was, only two Conservative councillors voted against the motion. The motion they presented was as follows:
“First Past the Post (FPTP) originated when land-owning aristocrats dominated parliament and voting was restricted to property-owning men … In Europe”,
as we have heard,
“only the UK and authoritarian Belarus still use archaic single-round FPTP for general elections. Meanwhile, internationally, Proportional Representation (PR) is used to elect parliaments in more than 80 countries. Those countries tend to be more equal, freer and greener … PR ensures all votes count, have equal value, and those seats won match votes cast. Under PR, MPs and Parliaments better reflect the age, gender and protected characteristics of local communities and the nation. MPs better reflecting their communities leads to improved decision-making, wider participation and increased levels of ownership of decisions taken … PR would also end minority rule. In 2019, 43.6% of the vote produced a government with 56.2% of the seats and 100% of the power. PR also prevents ‘wrong winner’ elections such as occurred in 1951 and February 1974 … PR is already used to elect the parliaments and assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So why not Westminster? … Council therefore resolves to write to H.M. Government calling for a change in our outdated electoral laws to enable Proportional Representation to be used for general, local and mayoral elections.”
I could not have put it any better myself. I fully support my noble friend’s amendment and hope that the Government will consider it seriously before Report.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Harris of Richmond. I will really restrain myself and not make general comments about PR but speak only about a specific element of democracy.
I am tempted to make a one-sentence contribution, which is, “Democracy: it would be a good idea, wouldn’t it, if we had it?” We are talking about a local area deciding how to elect its own representatives. The amendment does not say, “You have to have proportional representation —the system that we know means that the number of councillors matches the number of votes and that the council or the Parliament reflects the views of the people, and that we know produces a better quality of governance.” It does not say any of those things. It merely says that each local area should be able to decide the system under which it governs itself.
Of course, I have to make some reference to the better quality of governance which is demonstrably the result of proportional electoral systems, and indeed to look at the other side of this, which is what has just been happening in Plymouth City Council, where a Tory council has gone out in the middle of the night to cut down more than 100 mature trees in the city centre, despite significant local resistance. That, of course, is a replay; they seem not to have learned at all from what happened a few years ago in Sheffield, where a Labour council, again in a one party state-type set-up, did the same thing, sneaking around the streets in the early hours of the morning to try to ensure that it could cut down trees against the will of residents. So we have there a case study, which is not even slanted in any particular political direction, of our current system not working.
Again, I stress that the amendment does not say that it will force the change on anyone; it simply says that people should be able to decide for themselves. In the previous group of amendments, we focused on the lack of power in local government because of its lack of resources. Well, take back control: that was crucial and remains a very strong, passionate feeling among the British people. This amendment gives a chance to take back control at the local level, which is clearly urgently needed.

Lord Foster of Bath: My Lords, I will make a brief contribution because tonight, in East Suffolk Council, where I now have the great privilege of living, there is to be a debate on the very subject of democracy at local government level. I have just received a copy of the speech that will be given by David Beavan, the councillor for Southwold ward. He will say—he has not yet said it—the following:
“The Conservative party won the last election with 38% of the vote, but this gave them an overwhelming majority with 71% of the councillors. We are not allowed to debate the unfair first past the post system but we can debate ways to mitigate it so that the silent majority of non-Conservative voters are represented … This administration used its majority as a sledge hammer to close down debate in this council and to pack every committee and outside body with their own … We believe there is a better way to run this council … Where all members of every party have an opportunity to work for East Suffolk … Where debate is open and considered not predetermined by a party political whip … Where opposition members are given a fair chance to make their point in meetings … Where officers are not dragged into petty party politics … Above all we need a Scrutiny committee that is not directed by the administration. An opposition chair would ensure this independence … East Suffolk today faces big challenges. We need to work together as a community and a council. We should set aside party politics after the election and knuckle down to govern fairly for all of East Suffolk.”
I entirely agree with him, and I note that in an earlier discussion on Monday the noble Earl the Minister said clearly that this Bill is all about getting rid of “central diktat” and giving local people an opportunity to have a say. This amendment from my noble friend gives an opportunity to do that. I hope it will be supported by the Government.

Lord Stunell: My Lords, we have had a short debate and it will be very interesting to see how the Government respond to it. I wait in hope that something can be done, as my noble friend said in moving this amendment, to turbocharge local democracy. There is no doubt that it needs turbocharging: we see elements of its alienation every day of the week. We are moving closer and closer not to better local democracy, but to perhaps better but certainly more intense local administration. I have spoken on that already today. My noble friend made the extremely powerful point, and certainly a very good debating point, that if ID cards are good enough for Northern Ireland, surely a proportional voting system is good enough for England. I hope the Government have a really plausible reason for not accepting that argument.
My noble friend Lady Harris has accurately reported, I am sure, the views of Richmondshire District Council—incidentally, it is in North Yorkshire, which we were of course discussing earlier today—and the value of every vote being equal and the opportunities for regeneration that flow from that. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, drew our attention to some examples of bad practice and pointed out the damaging impacts of single-party rule. Since we certainly think it is inappropriate, to say the least, in North Korea, it ought to be inappropriate in our town halls in England as well. Restoring that element of local choice and broader representation ought surely to be one of the objectives of this levelling-up Bill.
My noble friend Lord Foster of Bath drew attention to the not untypical situation with East Suffolk Council whereby a party with less than 40% of the vote finishes  up with over 70% of the representation and therefore of the decision-making. We had debates earlier about the Government’s intention, set out clearly in the Bill, to suspend the operation of proportionality in local authorities in the formation of CCAs. I hope the Government Front Bench will take note of some of the malign consequences that can arise when proportionality is not adhered to. Of course, in terms of representation, a sense of alienation can grow in voters, and in non-voters but electors, who repeatedly say, “It’s not worth voting because they always get in”. That happens time and again, particularly in local government. Surely, we have to make sure that the voices of the silent ones—the voices being suppressed by that system—are in fact heard.
I want to hear the Government say, “There are things about this we do not like; we do not really want anything other than first past the post; but we do recognise that local communities, local councils, should have the right to choose for themselves the voting system they use”. My noble friend has set out in considerable detail a very compelling case: we are not suggesting throwing the whole system up in the air, but simply using systems already in operation in various parts of the United Kingdom, including in England.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Stunell. It has been a very interesting discussion. The arguments I have heard articulated many times over the years on voting methods have been rehearsed with great conviction this afternoon.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Harris, for tabling their amendment, which gets to the heart of the level of autonomy and devolution the Government wish to achieve through the Bill. Proposed new subsections (1) and (2) in their amendment set out the intention that local authorities be able to choose for themselves the voting system that will reinvigorate local democracy in their area. I am sure that no one would disagree with that aim, or even say that the methods suggested may not achieve it; but I am also sure that noble Lords would agree that changing the voting system by itself would likely only partially achieve that aim, if at all. If it is accompanied by greater financial freedoms and flexibilities, as we have already discussed, and wider powers for councillors to act in the interest of their communities—and if that, in turn, built confidence and engagement—that would create the kind of holistic change we all want to see. I am sure that that is the intention, as I am very conscious of the other contributions the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Harris, have made during the debates so far. No doubt they will make more such contributions.
Regarding proposed new subsection (3), having only recently been through the local government boundary commission process, I know that it is for local authorities to determine whether they wish to carry out elections by thirds or on an all-out basis. I hope that option will also exist for authorities which gather together in CCAs, and that, as the CCA is set up, it is able to determine for itself the sequence of elections.
Proposed new subsection (4) refers to the voting method used. I have listened with great interest to the debate and the very good points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on the voting systems of the devolved Administrations. I am interested to know whether and how a CCA would determine the voting method across, say, 10 or 12 constituent member authorities. I have a slight concern that, if the CCA is required to do that as part of the process of formation, it might just slow things down a bit while the CCA and the constituent local authorities debate the relative merits of alternative voting systems, many of which I have heard about over the years. I dare say that there may be some political preferences for one system over another. Proposed new subsection (5), as we see it, contains enabling provisions for the proposed new clause.
So while we could argue the relative merits of part of this amendment, it is again disappointing that, in setting out the Bill, we could not be more ambitious in addressing issues that are critical to overall devolution. It is rather a shame and a missed opportunity that the Bill did not include those vital issues.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, Amendment 157, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to enable each local authority to choose its own voting system. In doing so, the
“local authority must have regard to the benefits of reinvigorating local democracy in its area.”
We agree that a vigorous local democracy is vital; however, we take a different view as to how this will be best provided for.
First, we are clear on the merits of first past the post as a robust and secure way of electing representatives. It is well understood by voters and provides for strong, clear local accountability. It ensures a clear link between elected representatives and those who vote for them, in a manner that other voting systems may not. For those reasons, we have provided that, from this May’s elections, first past the post will also apply in voting for local authority and combined authority elected mayors, and for police and crime commissioners.
Secondly, we do not believe it would be right for the voting system to be a matter of local choice for particular councils. It is important that the voting system be clearly understood by electors and that they have confidence in it. Having different systems for neighbouring areas risks confusing electors, and any such confusion risks weakening public confidence in the electoral process.
A council being able to choose its voting system would also risk political manipulation. For example, the current controlling group on a council could seek to choose a system that it believes would favour it. While I accept that there could be various safeguards to mitigate that risk, I do not consider that it could be entirely removed.
Elections are the foundations of local democracy, which is central to our values and our being a free society; we should protect and nurture it. I recognise that all noble Lords in this Committee share that view, but I am afraid that what this amendment envisages would in practice be the kind of tinkering with the foundations of local democracy that I am clear we should avoid.
Finally, there are already relevant provisions in place under the local government and public health Act 2007 which enable district councils to change their scheme of elections. Those councils electing by thirds, where a third of council seats are up for re-election in each of three out of every four years, can move to whole-council elections, where all council seats are re-elected at once, every four years, and some councils currently holding whole-council elections, which formerly elected by thirds, can resolve to revert to electing by thirds.
Perhaps more importantly, experience has shown the merits of whole-council elections: facilitating stable, strategic local leadership, and delivering a clear programme for which the council can be held to account by the electorate. We encourage those councils still not holding whole-council elections to consider using the powers which Parliament has given them to switch to such elections. We would not wish to see councils which have not previously done so moving to elections by thirds.
Before I finish, I will just remind noble Lords that we had a referendum on changing first past the post in 2011, and 67.9% of the population voted against any change.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: Would the Minister acknowledge that that was not giving the public the choice of a proportional representation voting system, where the seats would match votes?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: But it was about a change in the type of election and there was a very clear result against it. I consider that to be a very clear result in support of first past the post.
Therefore, although I appreciate the intentions behind this amendment, for all of those reasons I hope I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her Amendment 157.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate so that we can explore the issue, because it is a sort of twin part of fiscal devolution. This is not an arcane debate for election geeks; it is really important if we are going to renew our local democracy. The amendment is not asking very much; it is simply asking for local authorities to be allowed—there is an example of control from Whitehall—to choose their own voting system.
My noble friend Lord Stunell raised two important issues about first past the post. If electors feel that the outcome of an election is a foregone conclusion, they do not bother to vote. You can see that in turnouts across the country. It leads to apathy and cynicism, which are the last emotions that we need to see in our voters when we know that we need to reinvigorate our local democracy. Change is going to be important if we are going to narrow inequalities, which is what this levelling-up Bill should be all about. However, change can be divisive, so if you have a broader representation of views and hear more voices, you have a better chance of drawing people together to agree to a change—not cutting down trees in the middle of the night, which is apparently what happened in Tory-run Plymouth council.
I will just say one or two things about the response from the Minister. I thank her for replying and claiming that first past the post is the only one that allows the link with electors. So what are the Government doing then allowing Northern Ireland to use STV, Scotland to use STV for its local elections and Wales to use different systems? If it is so bad and does not make a link, what is going on here? Local government is powerful in those countries, and we need to make it powerful here.
My last point is that the Minister, if I heard her right, said that if we introduce a system where local authorities can choose which voting system they wish to use, the current political makeup of a council would choose a system that suited them. But the whole point of a more proportional system is that you cannot do that. It is up to the voters to choose. Putting the power in the hands of the voters seems a jolly good idea. With that, I look forward to trying to change the Minister’s mind and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 157 withdrawn.

Amendment 158

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: Moved by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
158: After Clause 70, insert the following new Clause—“Local authorities to be allowed to meet virtually(1) A reference in any enactment to a meeting of a local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons all of whom, or any of whom, are present in the same place and any reference to a “place” where a meeting is held, or to be held, includes reference to more than one place including electronic, digital or virtual locations such as internet locations, web addresses or conference call telephone numbers.(2) For the purposes of any such enactment, a member of a local authority (a “member in remote attendance”) attends the meeting at any time if all of the conditions in subsection (3) are satisfied.(3) Those conditions are that the member in remote attendance is able at that time—(a) to hear, and where practicable see, and be heard and, where practicable, seen by the other members in attendance,(b) to hear, and where practicable see, and be heard and, where practicable, seen by any members of the public entitled to attend the meeting in order to exercise a right to speak at the meeting, and(c) to be heard and, where practicable, seen by any other members of the public attending the meeting.(4) In this section any reference to a member, or a member of the public, attending a meeting includes that person attending by remote access.(5) The provision made in this section applies notwithstanding any prohibition or other restriction contained in the standing orders or any other rules of the authority governing the meeting and any such prohibition or restriction has no effect.(6) A local authority may make other standing orders and any other rules of the authority governing the meeting about remote attendance at meetings of that authority, which may include provision for—(a) voting,(b) member and public access to documents, and(c) remote access of public and press to a local authority meeting to enable them to attend or participate in that meeting by electronic means, including by telephone conference, video conference, live webcasts, and live interactive streaming.”  Member’s explanatory statementThis new clause would enable local authorities to meet virtually. It is based on regulation 5 of the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, made under section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I would like to start by paying tribute to the late Baroness Masham, recognising what a great champion she has been for North Yorkshire, and saying how much missed she will be.
In moving my Amendment 158 I will speak to Amendment 310 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and to Amendment 312D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. On Amendment 158, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for lending their support.
The genesis of this amendment is to try and establish what the current status of virtual meetings is. I believe there is a certain lack of clarity and I personally do not understand whether it is possible for local councils to meet virtually since we have moved away from the arrangements in place during the height of the Covid virus.
I would like to make a plea to my noble friend the Minister. I do not know whether it is my noble friend Lord Howe, who is most welcome to his place this evening. I make a plea to him to consider the case, particularly given the inclement weather we have enjoyed—perhaps suffered—in the last fortnight in North Yorkshire, that it should not be obligatory to insist that a local councillor perform their democratic duty of turning up to attend all council meetings of every committee, not just a planning committee, although I have drafted the amendment against that background. It would apply to full council meetings and all committee meetings. In the event of an injury and someone being incapacitated—for example, if they cannot drive to attend a meeting—if it was a hybrid situation or if the weather was so bad that the meeting would not be quorate, the amendment would enable the meeting to take place in certain circumstances.
We know that local authorities met virtually to great effect under the regulations passed in 2020. I would like to remind my noble friend and the department that that worked to great effect. Is that still the position? Have those regulations now been lifted? Is it for the Government to come forward with new regulations— that is the purpose of my Amendment 158—to allow councils to meet in plenary, either as a full council or in committee, or can they currently agree to meet in remote circumstances?
If it is not permitted at the moment, I urge my noble friend to look extremely favourably on this amendment and make the case that, in certain circumstances— I would argue particularly in deeply rural areas such as North Yorkshire, which suffers occasional adverse weather conditions—it should be open to all councils at every level, if they wish to, to meet remotely to exercise their democratic duty and to represent their residents.
I think that the proposals are all self-explanatory. This was the amendment lifted from the Commons, where it applied to planning committees only, but I would like it to apply to all committees, and plenary sessions of the council as well. I have set out the conditions in which that would be satisfied, for how the voting would be recorded and how, with a physical meeting, others could attend remotely as well. For those reasons, I prefer my Amendment 158 to Amendments 310 and 312D. I can see absolutely no reason why it should be the case that it would be only planning committees that would meet. I would like to see licensing committees and planning committees—all committees—as well as plenary committees being permitted to do so in that regard. I turn with a plea to my noble friend to look favourably on this amendment. With those few remarks, I beg to move.

Lord Lansley: I shall presume to follow my noble friend and speak to Amendment 310 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I support my noble friend’s amendment, which is very helpful in setting out in full the potential structure of a power to enable local authorities to hold meetings remotely. Of course it does not require them to do so—it simply permits them to do so.
The story of this, essentially, is that during the pandemic the Coronavirus Act 2020 permitted local authorities to hold meetings remotely, and many did. That expired on 7 May 2021, and the Local Government Association and others sought a declaratory judgment from the High Court as to whether they could continue to meet remotely, in the absence of specific legislative provision. The High Court said that they could not—that it was clear that meetings required persons to be in the place required under the 1972 Act. Since 7 May 2021, they cannot proceed with remote meetings, which is a serious impediment, not least since the LGA’s chair at the time said that:
“The pandemic proved that using virtual meeting options can help councils work more effectively and efficiently and can in fact increase engagement from both councillors and residents”.
The first is fairly obvious; the second is particularly helpful. A survey conducted by the LGA back in November 2021 demonstrated that costs were lower for virtual meetings but also, and more significantly, public attendance could be higher at virtual meetings. It is very important to give local authorities those options.
The point that I come to is that the Government at the time, back in 2021, issued a call for evidence on remote meetings. We are now the best part of two years on and they have not proceeded on the basis of that call for evidence. I would hope or expect that the call for evidence demonstrated that this is an opportunity to assist local authorities to structure their meetings in a way that can maximise engagement and participation, and I am at a loss to know why they have not proceeded. At the time, of course, they said that there was a lack of a suitable legislative opportunity—well, here we are, and here it is. The Government have not put it in the Bill, but we have the option to do so. I may press my noble friend the Minister a little more than my noble friend Lady McIntosh might do: the time has come for the Government to get off the fence on this  one. On Report, the best possible solution would be for them to bring forward their own amendment for this purpose.
There is a difference between the two amendments. Mine relates only to planning meetings and its structure is to create a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State. I suspect that, for that reason, it is preferable to the Government since, in Amendment 158, we have a regulation under the Coronavirus Act 2020 that is being turned into primary legislation. That is not always the most helpful way to structure things. I think the right way forward would be for the Government to introduce their own amendment on Report.
I was interested in this from the point of view of planning meetings, as part of the general process of trying to encourage efficient and effective decision-making in planning. I understand that there is an argument for this to be applied more generally, although it was obvious, from some of the references to evidence given before the High Court, that there is some hesitation on the part of experts about holding, for example, councils’ full or annual meetings virtually. The problem is the lack of personal interaction between councillors at such meetings and the difficulty of managing business under those circumstances. It is fair to say that simply giving local authorities this power would be a straight- forward way to do it, but I completely understand if some restrictions, particularly on full or annual council meetings, limited the exercise of that power. Either way, I hope that my noble friend indicates, whether definitely or otherwise, that the Government will think urgently about whether to bring forward measures to give local government this power in the Bill, through amendment on Report.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, I support Amendments 158 and 310. Obviously Amendment 310 is more limited so I see it as a fallback, but I honestly cannot see any reason for the Government not to accept Amendment 158.
Covid obviously provided us with a lot of challenges, one of which was how to keep things going and how society and, for example, your Lordships’ House could still function. At the time, I thought that your Lordships’ House managed better than the other place. We were quicker to put in remote systems for voting and participating, which I thought was a huge advance in the methods that we used for debates and to create legislation.
I actually did not know that councils cannot meet virtually any more and think it is a terrible shame. I have been a councillor and it is really hard work. Going to council meetings on a cold wet night in November, December, January or February can be an extra challenge. Quite honestly, why on earth would we not do this? Virtual council meetings—and virtual meetings of your Lordships’ House—worked extremely well. We all found that we could work the mute button, although some have gone backwards on that. We still allow noble Lords to engage virtually, so it is logical for councillors.
Work has changed because of Covid. More people are working remotely and not going into the office as much. One of my daughters, although she has a full-time job, goes into the office only two days a week  now. My partner goes into his office one day a month and my other daughter goes into her office once every two months. Even so, they all work extremely well and efficiently. I do not understand this regressive move.
There have been other regressive moves here. I loathe how we still start in the afternoons, even though we started earlier during Covid. It is easy to slip back into bad, old habits instead of taking new ideas forward and engaging in the best way possible. I hope that the Government see sense on this and, as is suggested, bring their own amendment forward. We would all support it.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the National Association of Local Councils. I added my name to this because NALC is very firmly of the view that there were huge benefits, which I will talk about in a moment, to virtual meetings during the pandemic. Councils were very sorry to lose them when the regulations expired in May 2021. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned, there is evidence of more participation by council members in virtual meetings but, for me and members of NALC, the really telling thing was the increased participation of members of the public. At the end of the day, that must be the most important thing; there was more engagement and transparency because people could more easily engage.
There were other benefits as well. One that I feel particularly strongly about—I have heard some powerful testimony from parish and town council members on this—was to those who have now had to give up because they cannot find childcare or because their partners need care and they simply cannot get out. It cannot be right that this whole group of people are being excluded from an activity that they love to do and at which they are probably very good. Virtual meetings could really help them.
I will make two other brief points. First, when I was a county councillor, I tried to get around my parishes but I had 12 of them—I had colleagues who had 23 or 26. It is not just county councillors; there are the district councils and people from the police and from health. They want to get around and meet town and parish councils, but it is very difficult. Virtual meetings provide a great way for people like that to engage with their local councils. It really makes it more straightforward.
Secondly, I return to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about this call for evidence. It took place between March and June 2021, when the regulations expired. In February, Lawyers in Local Government and the Association of Democratic Services Officers submitted a freedom of information request to ask exactly what had happened to the consultation responses. I will read the reply:
“We believe that releasing this information at this stage serves no particular public interest and is outweighed by the level of burden imposed on the Department in processing your request. The Government does intend to respond to the call for evidence, and when we do, that response will include a summary of the responses received. We are therefore not obliged to consider your request any further.”
Can the noble Baroness say—oh, it is the noble Earl; bad luck—why, after two years, this has still not been done? Does the Minister believe that this is a fair way  to treat the 4,370 people and organisations that submitted evidence in good faith only to find that it has in effect been shelved?
Given that legislation is required to make this change—what lunacy that we live in a country where you need legislation to allow councils to choose how they should meet—this Bill would have been perfect for it, yet the consultation responses are still gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. Can the Minister say when he believes these will be dealt with? Can we have this in time for Report, given that we will have Easter in the middle, and some movement on it when we come to Report?

Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 158. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils; I am also the co-president of the West Sussex Association of Local Councils.
I remember clearly that we had a difficult meeting of the county association, in that the matters were contentious. It was dealt with online. I and my co-president went through the whole thing; all I can say is that it was entirely satisfactory. It was well organised from the word go and was well marshalled by the clerk of the association. The matter was carried off to everybody’s reasonable satisfaction; given that there were contentious matters, nobody complained.
I would just like to say that the world has changed. The world was changing beforehand; I was doing virtual meetings long before Covid came along. The fact that the technology was there and was sped up says a great deal about those who were responsible for getting things organised, particularly those in this House who organised things so that we could hold our proceedings virtually. It was enormously to the credit of those who seized the opportunity to do it.
However, if we are going to speed up Britain, one of the first things we will want to do is make sure that we make cost-efficient use of people’s time. The first bit of cost-efficiency is reducing road miles; we can start by decarbonising meetings. I am not very far from my local authority offices but I know that, by the time I have travelled five miles, found a parking space, probably paid for parking, crossed the road and gone into the council chamber—I am not a serving councillor; I just use that as an example—it will have taken me a good half an hour, with another half an hour on the way back, thank you very much. If you want busy people to devote their time and energy, you really have to make efficient use of their time; otherwise, they disconnect.
The other important thing here is inclusivity; other noble Lords and noble Baronesses have mentioned this. We are dealing with people who may be infirm or have mobility difficulties. This may involve young people in households with schedules that do not match; they may work away so it is hard for them to get back in time with normal commuting. Of course, you also have parents who are looking after young people and cannot get away. They cannot detach themselves from their household, never mind the infirm or those with other issues.
On the grounds of cost-efficiency and inclusivity, these amendments are very powerful. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for introducing this  group and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for taking us through the history of where this issue was. I say again: things have moved on. We need to look at a modern, efficient way of working. This amendment does not say that you would have to have virtual meetings; it gives local choice on the matter. How come a parliamentary Select Committee can operate virtually if it decides that that is convenient, as I think is still the case, but a parish council—or a planning committee, for that matter—somehow cannot? This is inconsistent and makes no sense, so I very much support these amendments. I hope that the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will consider them carefully and reflect on them; I know that he is an enormously fair-minded man when it comes to these things.

Baroness Pinnock: This issue is part of a threesome that we have debated this evening: local democracy; fiscal and electoral decisions; and, now, how we hold meetings. How is it that Westminster can dictate how local councils should conduct themselves? That is the question I want to ask. I know that they deal with potholes; actually, I have a plan for potholes. Can we have migration of potholes? Do noble Lords think that would help? It seems to me that these amendments have a lot of merit; I will say why.
The first issue is travel. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised this but only in relation to going a short distance. In their wisdom, the Government have created two new unitary authorities, which start their life in April. North Yorkshire is one. If you live in Selby or are elected to represent Selby, in one part of North Yorkshire, you now have to travel 56 miles to get to a council meeting in Northallerton. That is a 112-mile round trip to get to a meeting. You have to ask yourself: is that an efficient use of anybody’s time, and does it contribute to our net-zero ambitions?
Then there is Somerset, which Members of the Committee may believe is a smaller county, but if you live at one end, in Frome, and the county hall is in Taunton, at the other end of the county, that too is 56 miles and a 112-mile round trip. That is not cost effective or efficient in anybody’s life. If you live in Yorkshire, especially North Yorkshire, and you have to go across the dales or the moors in winter to attend a meeting, you know that sometimes it is simply not possible. That is one reason.
I hope the Government will take up the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, of bringing forward a government amendment, either shortly or at the next stage, to deal with this. As the noble Lord said, it is about efficiency. Virtual meetings lower costs and enable more people to get involved. If we are interested in local democracy, as I am, the more people who can get involved and engaged in decision-making, the better.
My final point, well made by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, is about the engagement and involvement of people who are otherwise excluded from being councillors because of either caring responsibilities or lack of transport. If you do not have a car in North Yorkshire, I do not know how you get to Northallerton. Maybe the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, can tell us, but I think it might take a couple of days.
For all those reasons, it is really important that if we want to reinvigorate our local democracy—which is essential if we are to narrow inequalities, which is at the heart of the levelling-up process—we need more people to be engaged. If we want more people to be engaged and involved, we have to enable it by letting councils decide for themselves whether they want virtual meetings. I fully support the principle behind all these amendments.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, this has been a really important debate. This is such an important issue, yet it could be so simply resolved. We have heard about the Government’s call for evidence, but so far we have not heard anything from them, so it will be extremely interesting to hear the Minister’s response to that, particularly following the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the freedom of information request, which were a bit disappointing to hear.
The Local Government Association was, unsurprisingly, one of the organisations that made a fairly detailed submission to the Government. It noted an enormous number of benefits gained by local councils from being able to meet virtually. It said strongly that it hoped this ability would be retained, particularly when it is locally appropriate. We have heard a lot about how appropriate it is in Yorkshire, and it is the same with me in Cumbria.
We need to remember, as has been said, the huge benefits to the democratic process that were brought by enabling councils to meet virtually. It reduced reliance on delegating decisions to officers if there was a crisis, for example, because everyone could get together very quickly. There was much more flexibility, better councillor attendance and better engagement with local residents at council meetings. We have also heard of the difficulties that disabled people often have, or those of people in rural areas who do not have a car. This managed to completely change their ability to attend meetings and take part in local democracy. As was said earlier, if we can have people attending this House virtually, why on earth can we not have the same for people at local government level?
It is also really important that the Government are not so ridiculously prescriptive about how and when councils can meet. I genuinely do not understand why there has not been any movement following the call for evidence. I can see no reason why this is not a good thing to continue with. The LGA added in its response that councils would need considerable flexibility for local determination as to how and when to utilise virtual and hybrid meetings to ensure that they realise the benefits of all the different meeting options that suit the local context. Again, that flexibility is hugely important for democracy. As I said, I find it completely baffling that this was not just automatically extended once the benefits could be seen.
We know that councils provide many different services to their communities. Their decisions obviously affect the lives of residents, so to have a system where you actively enable high levels of civic representation and where citizens’ voices are heard and taken into account in policy-making, local decision-making and planning—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, particularly referred to—is surely of benefit to the whole of our society.  We need to address issues of underrepresentation, which we talked about during the passage of the Elections Bill. Encouraging participation in local democracy at every single level is more likely to encourage people to take part in elections when they come forward.
We have an amendment on this, because we think it is important. We strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as hers is a really important amendment; I hope the Government will eventually come behind her. We support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but if you allow virtual meetings only for planning meetings, I am not sure how much that helps parish councils, for example. I will wind up, because I know we want to break.
In our parish, virtual meetings and being able to meet remotely were an absolute godsend. I know that when we were told that was no longer possible, the parish council was not just deeply disappointed but pretty cross about it. It had enabled far more people to attend meetings, not just the councillors but the general public. Like Yorkshire, Cumbria is a very rural area. We have heard about the local authorities referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady McIntosh, but even just our parish covers a pretty wide area. For people to find out what was going on in their parish was of huge benefit. People logged into the meetings who had never attended before. Again, it is such a shame to have lost that.
Along with other noble Lords who have spoken, I am honestly of the opinion that this is such a no-brainer for this Bill. I really hope that, following this debate and taking away the thoughts that have come from it, the Government will consider coming back with a similar amendment on Report so that we can just get on with this.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I remind the Committee that the Coronavirus Act 2020 contained numerous measures which were intentionally —and, in the Government’s view, rightly—time-limited as they were introduced in an emergency at great speed. The local authority remote meetings regulations arising from that Act gave local authorities the flexibility to meet remotely or in hybrid form. Since their expiry, all councils have reverted to in-person meetings and local government is back to how it operated pre-Covid and working effectively.
All three amendments in this group propose in different ways a relaxation of the rules relating to meetings held by local councils. Amendment 158, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, leans directly into the regulations that expired on 7 May 2021, using powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020. In a related vein, Amendment 310, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, aims to allow planning committee meetings of local authorities to take place virtually, as well as making related provisions for public access to meetings and remote access to meeting documents. Amendment 312D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is a probing amendment on a similar theme.
I have noted the powerful contributions made in this debate but I fear that I must give my noble friends and the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Hayman, a disappointing answer at this stage. The Government are of the view that physical attendance is important for delivering good governance and democratic accountability. As we in this House may recognise, there are clear benefits to democratic representatives debating and voting on matters in person rather than at the end of a video call. The nature of debate is different, and the nature of interaction is different, in a positive sense. There are benefits to the—

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: These amendments do not preclude that, but give an option. Does the noble Earl not think that having that option would be a benefit?

Earl Howe: I completely appreciate that, but I ask the noble Baroness to hear me out. There are benefits, which we would all recognise, to the side-discussions that are facilitated by being physically next to colleagues, and these are not the only considerations. It is worth my reminding the Committee that there is no restriction on in-person council meetings being filmed or webcast to allow the public to view proceedings remotely. Indeed, the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 extended full rights for the press and public to record and broadcast council meetings.
I have listened carefully to my noble friends and to noble Lords opposite, who have argued, often from first-hand perspectives, for the current legislation to be changed. I am afraid that the most that I can do at this stage is to say that we will keep the matter under review, and I undertake that we will do so.
My noble friend Lord Lansley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked me about the current position on the call for evidence and the government response. Conversations are continuing across government and as soon as possible after those conversations are concluded, we will publish a government response to the call for evidence, which will set out our intentions. However, for the time being, I must resist all three of these amendments.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: Can the Minister explain why your Lordships’ House allows virtual contributions but does not give councils the opportunity to do the same thing?

Earl Howe: That is one of the considerations we are looking at. The noble Baroness is quite right—she knows that there are certain of our number whom the House in its wisdom has decided should be allowed to contribute virtually. These things should be considered in the mix, but I am afraid I cannot give the Committee a definitive answer for the reasons I have explained.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to what has been an excellent debate; there was unanimity across the Committee. If the Government are not prepared to table an amendment encapsulating the  points that were raised, it may be helpful to point out that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said, this is not an obligation on councils. We are simply extending the choice they enjoyed under the very strict Covid regulations to permit democracy to continue and allow councils to meet. A number of examples have been given. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to caring responsibilities being added to the others. Councils at every level—and I think it important to include them all: parish councils, right up to the highest level, where appropriate—should have the right to choose.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, Filey to Northallerton is 57 miles. There are trains that take two hours 13 minutes one way, but they do not run at the time the council starts or ends the meeting. We have had a discussion about the weather and other reasons, such as incapacity, why individual councillors may not be able to attend a particular meeting. I find the arguments for the amendment very compelling; there is no downside that we have heard about. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, we do not know whether there is a downside, but if there were I think the Government would have been prepared to publish the evidence, because that would have strengthened their argument.
There are very compelling reasons for doing this: representation of both councillors and the public went up. However, I do not think we should make it obligatory. This House is allowed to meet virtually if you are incapacitated, or in committee; that is the committee’s choice. I would like to extend that same choice to councils at every level. I therefore propose to table—with cross-party support, I hope—an appropriate amendment on Report, unless my noble friend and the Government can table an even better one. The time to act is now. We are losing good councillors and members of the public who may not be able to attend for those reasons. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 158 withdrawn.
House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.25 pm.

Public Spending: Barnett Formula
 - Question for Short Debate

Lord Shipley: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the relevance of the Barnett Formula in the distribution of public spending across the United Kingdom.

Lord Shipley: My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate the relevance of the Barnett formula in the allocation of public funding in the UK. I am grateful to those colleagues who have put their names down to speak, and I am looking forward immensely to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, make his maiden speech. In passing, I thank the Library for the excellence of its briefing.
The formula was introduced by the late Lord Barnett, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in 1978 to prevent annual funding arguments with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It was introduced in Scotland in 1978, into Northern Ireland in 1979, and into Wales in 1980. The formula was used for allocating public spending until 1999, when it became the mechanism for the allocation of block grant. The Barnett formula calculates the yearly change in the block grant to the devolved Administrations from the UK Government. It calculates not the size of the block grant but rather the annual change in per-person funding, and in that sense it is clearly related to population. The nations can decide how to reallocate spending to other services from that block grant, and of course the block grant applies only to devolved public services.
Lord Barnett and others believed that spending in each part of the UK would converge over time. This was because devolved nations had a higher base of public spending and, when a fixed cash sum increase per head was allocated annually across the UK, the percentage rise to the nations would be lower than in England. There would then be gradual convergence because standard cash increase per capita should lead to a lower percentage increase. However, since then, formula bypass has become a factor—that is, additional money for a range of purposes not directly connected with the Barnett formula. The formula calculation is based on the historical amount that is devolved, but population rather than need has been a key factor—and has proved too large a factor.
The Barnett formula is still with us 45 years later. It has not eroded historical differences in spending between the regions and nations, as was expected. I do not think that the word “formula” is justifiable today, when it was a short-term fix driven by short-term funding needs in the nations and can be bypassed in the way that it has been. As Lord Barnett said in 2014 in his last speech on the subject, the formula was drawn up on the back of an envelope, and was not based on need. He called it “a national embarrassment”. He believed in a UK-wide needs-based system for allocating public funding, and he regularly asked Governments to cease calling it the Barnett formula when it was not his formula. He was right to do so. It may be a simple and predictable process for the Treasury but, because it can be bypassed by extra funding streams, it is not as transparent as it should be.
In 2009, a Select Committee of this House agreed with Lord Barnett; it urged replacing the formula with a needs-based system. The Calman commission in 2009 urged an assessment of need as a factor in the formula and, since then, the Institute for Government and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have both urged reform of the Barnett formula. The Constitution Committee in this House has three times, in 2015, 2016 and 2022, said that the Barnett formula should be reformed to achieve a fairer allocation of funding among the four nations. The Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, in its interim report, said that a needs-based system could be agreed and phased in.
We have ended up with a block grant system to the nations which can be flexibly used, but centralised control of the regions in England by the UK Government  out of London. In today’s Budget, there seems to be some scope for further decentralisation through a block grant system into some mayoral combined authorities in England. I welcome that, but it should be on the same terms as the nations have. As it is today, government spending is higher per head in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales than in England. That may be justified, particularly when sparsity of population is considered, but we need to know the evidence, and a needs analysis is the way to find out. Indeed, the more the Government decentralise into England, as today’s Budget will demonstrate, the more challenge there will be for the Government to show that the allocations into England are fair.
The current figures, published by the Government in December 2022—their figures covering 2021-22—show that the lowest per capita public spending in the nations and regions is the East Midlands at £10,528 per head. In Northern Ireland, that figure compares to £14,062 per capita. In Scotland, it is £13,881 per capita; in Wales, it is £13,401 per capita; and London has £13,719 per capita. I want to ask the Minister why the share of UK public spending in the East Midlands is so comparatively low. I do not expect her to answer now, but I would appreciate something in writing which explains why there is such a profound difference in public spending in regions such as the East Midlands, compared to some others at the top of the list. As I said earlier, there may be reasons which are easy to understand and justify, but I would like to see what they are. I think—but do not know—that Treasury officials must know the answer to that question. In the context of today’s Budget, we are going to have to be much more open about it. If the Minister is able to write something down and supply it to all those taking part in this debate, that is the way to take a first step in understanding how it is justifiable that a region like the East Midlands has such a low figure.
Can we create a needs-based analysis? I am sort of waiting for the Minister to tell us that it is a complex task to undertake a needs analysis. Should that be the answer, I want to say in advance that, of course, it is not a complex task at all, and the reason is that the Government are already doing it as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. In February 2022, the Government produced a document called Levelling Up the United Kingdom: Missions and Metrics Technical Annex, and, at the back of that, all the indices that the Government are working on to level up England—and many of those metrics relate to the United Kingdom—can be used to undertake a needs analysis across the United Kingdom. If any Members have not seen that set of metrics produced as part of the Bill, I strongly advise that it is worthwhile read.
I really hope that the Minister’s reply will show some flexibility. In the last couple of hours, we had a debate on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill about the need for constituent parts of England to have fiscal powers. It just will not do for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to have substantial fiscal powers and for the constituent parts of England not to have those. We must have that debate, but I sincerely hope that the Minister will take seriously the point that I am trying to make tonight and that, in the context of what  Lord Barnett established back in the late 1970s, there will be some better understanding of the need to move on from what is now an out-of-date formula.

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, I chose to spend my evening talking about the Barnett formula in large part because of the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill. I watched him be an absolute supremo of London’s transport system, whether it was on the surface—he loves his buses—or underneath the ground on something called the Underground, and he ran that with brilliance over many years, serving different masters equally well.
I am also a huge fan of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, despite our being on opposing Benches, because we are both ex-Procter & Gamble people. We like to keep our comments brief and have some data, so I will leave all the data to him and give some emotion on the Barnett formula: it is a bit of a challenge. Some of the changes we have seen to the formula over 45 years have been changes in the way that taxes have been devolved, which has meant that there has been some compensation in the size of block grants, because there are greater tax-raising powers for the devolved Administrations, and also welfare was devolved so, again, we saw some increases. However, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, makes the point that the Government have essentially bypassed the formula and focused on population rather than need. The great clarion call from the noble Lord is to focus on fairness. I will make a case that the Government should focus not on a needs- based analysis but on an opportunity-based analysis.
One of the things I discovered being responsible for a small part of west London in an area of extreme deprivation is that the more an area presented itself as being needy, the more government would spend on the area and nothing would get better. White City had initiative after initiative, for instance, based on its need, because its index of multiple deprivation being in the top 5% in the country, with the White City estate being a particularly poor area, and nothing worked. However, when we focused, as the previous Labour Administration started to do, on opportunity, and brought the jobs, with the opening of such things as Westfield and by encouraging Imperial College to come and have its “lung to the west” in White City, when we focused on growth, the jobs arrived and people had the opportunity to get on in life.
I think the agenda around this needs to be not around how we cut the cake to be fair, but how we create greater opportunities. I disagree fundamentally with the thinking that local government should be just about resource equalisation, so we all have equal resources. I actually think we will get better civic leadership if we start life as a race. Yes, we should ensure that people start equally, so resource equalisation should be around making sure that the starting line is equal; that, I understand. But when it comes to civic leaders, if we want the Joe Chamberlains and the big civic titans who transformed Birmingham, if we want the leaders who will make the north-east as competitive as London, we need people who have the vision to do that. They need to do more than just worry about how needy the area is so that they can get more money from Whitehall.
Where I am sure I will get agreement from the Liberal Democrats, if not perhaps from the Opposition, is around the need, in this case, for some change in policy. At the moment, all the policy from successive Governments is around devolution, with a mindset that Whitehall is there to tell the rest of government, above the level of the United Kingdom, how to govern: they should act as an agency of Whitehall. I think that is entirely wrong. What we need to see, if we want grown-up civic leadership, is a decentralisation of government, a letting go from No. 10 and No. 11, and then we will unleash those areas.
I wrote about this when I was perhaps in my political prime, in 2010. This is a great book, I will give it to the first person who wants to read it, A Magna Carta for Localism written by myself, Steven Greenhalgh, now Lord Greenhalgh; Sir Edward Lister, now my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister; and Colin Barrow—I do not know what happened to him, perhaps he will arrive shortly. The argument is around localism: how do we ensure that we break down the command state, the inspection industry, the service silos and financial dependency, so that local areas, now that we have left the EU, can do this? How do we ensure that local areas have the power to raise the taxes that they spend locally? I am not expecting the Minister to give an answer to any of that, because it is a pipe dream, potentially, but it is the right way forward.
We need to change things. We need to think about opportunity. I have served at every level of government, in the town hall for 16 years, in City Hall for four years—alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who was my biggest fan, let me tell you—and in national government for two and a half years, on that Bench where my noble friend the Minister is sitting. I sat there for nearly two and a half years and I enjoyed every second of it. I have to say that what I discovered is that there are great opportunities, even today, in local government. If we create an environment where you have genuine civic leadership, where you are responsible for your destiny, where you can spend the money you raise and think about how to attract investment to your local area without the dead hand of Whitehall, I think we would get a far better leadership, whether it is from the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. That is what I believe needs to happen.
We need to ensure that the NHS focuses on health but that local authorities deliver care, which they do anyway. They know about that: they have contracted and commissioned care for at least 10, 15 or 20 years— I do not know how long, but the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will. We need to get the DWP focusing on benefits policy rather than unemployment, because the initiatives happen closer to home. Local government knows how to get people back on to pathways for work better than the dead hand of Whitehall. The police need to focus on cutting crime rather than on social care.
These are the things that need to happen to avoid multiple levels of bureaucracy, where we have a national strategy for violence against women and girls, a city or mayoral strategy that does the opposite of the national strategy, and a local strategy that does something different. We need a focus that avoids these overlapping bureaucracies and sets our town halls, our city halls in our great cities and local government absolutely free  to drive a pathway towards opportunity and growth. Where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is that the start point needs to be equal, but then set them free. I believe that is the way forward. Then we will see a great era of municipal leadership.
With that call for financial independence, which I can see everyone agrees with wholeheartedly, I hope my noble friend Lady Penn can pick something up from my thoughts.

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill: My Lords, first, I am grateful to the Lord Speaker, the Clerk of the Parliaments, Black Rod, the doorkeepers and all the staff of the House for making me so welcome. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, has been particularly welcoming. I am so sorry to hear of his incapacity and I wish him a speedy recovery.
I also thank my noble kinsman Lord Hendy and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for supporting my introduction. I was not in the least surprised to see my elder brother elevated here, but never in my career in public transport, particularly when I conducted and later drove my number 11 bus around Parliament Square, would I have believed that I might one day be here too. I think we are one of only two pairs of siblings in your Lordships’ House.
I have managed bus operations in both the public and private sectors in London, elsewhere in England and in Hong Kong. I led a successful management-employee buyout when London Transport privatised the company I ran, and later returned to the public sector when the mayoralty and Transport for London were created in 2000. I managed London’s buses, major roads, Thames piers, and taxi and private hire licensing, including during and after the terrible terrorist bombings of July 2005. Then, in 2006, for nearly 10 years I became commissioner of transport, serving two mayors, Livingstone and Johnson, and I had the privilege of leading through the Olympic and Paralympic Games of 2012. For the avoidance of doubt, the credit for all the things that went well through all that time is to the staff, the management and contractors rather than simply to me.
In any event, I would never have equalled the achievements, nor the length of service, of my illustrious predecessor, the late Lord Ashfield, who ran London’s transport for nearly 30 years. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is a more recent and worthy successor in that role, but he had the misfortune to be at the inception of the ill-fated Tube public/private partnership. I do not blame him at all for the results of that, but I did take great pleasure in dismantling those flawed and expensive arrangements.
In July 2015, the then Secretary of State for Transport, now the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, abruptly summoned me to be appointed chair of Network Rail, then recently brought back into the public sector from the pretence of being outside it, despite government guaranteeing all its very substantial debts. I think I am grateful to him for that, although I still miss the comprehensive structure of TfL, its long-term planning horizon, its focus on passengers and its contribution to London’s economy.
I still chair Network Rail today and, subject always to the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport, I hope to continue for some while longer. I say that because our railway has great challenges to confront, and passengers, freight, the economy and the nation deserve better than we currently achieve. We have less demand and significantly less revenue than we did before Covid, and we must reduce costs.
The structures used to run the railway are not aligned to customers and are convoluted and excessively contractual. Cost is accounted for in a different place from revenue, track and train are divided, and innovation is supressed. Investment plans are seldom entirely fulfilled in practice, and, despite enthusiasm from all political parties for more investment, we do not have a prioritised, costed and long-term plan. Nor do we have as many private sector contributions to those investments as we should or, indeed, as we did at TfL.
This is all because the railway is not managed as a whole system. Passengers, freight, and regional and local stakeholders are all dissatisfied with a network which, when it goes wrong, can be the responsibility only of the Secretary of State for Transport. TfL was different: as the commissioner, quite properly, the failures were mine and the successes belonged to the mayor. I am able to say all that because the Government have the same view, as do, I think, many on all sides of this House. The reform of our railway is essential, because the connectivity it delivers is a major driver of economic growth, jobs, housing, social cohesion and sustainability, and with the right structure, we will do better. Thus, I am looking forward to primary legislation to create Great British Railways. In due course, with my brilliant chief executive at Network Rail, Andrew Haines, we hope to play the most active part we can in implementing the reforms proposed in the recent White Paper. They cannot come too quickly.
Your Lordships may also know that I am the author of a recent report on the connectivity of the United Kingdom, which has featured in recent Oral and Written Questions. I am looking forward to the Government’s response to my recommendations, which I know is in preparation. One of my conclusions in the Union Connectivity Review was that HS2 could make a better contribution than currently planned to transforming journeys to and from England and north Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is therefore strange that, as a consequence of spending on HS2, Scotland and Northern Ireland received additional funds as part of the block grant but Wales did not. That suggests that something is amiss with the way the Barnett formula is applied.
I also chair the London Legacy Development Corporation, which is building out the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in Stratford. It is the most successful Olympic and Paralympic regeneration anywhere in the world, and possible only because of better access by public transport. Connectivity, urban regeneration and economic growth are intimately connected.
Finally, I have an active interest in transport heritage. I own and drive vintage London buses, similar to the ones I drove and conducted over 40 years ago. I suspect that I am the only Member of this House holding a passenger carrying vehicle driving licence. I am a trustee of the Science Museum Group, where I chair  the National Railway Museum’s advisory board, and I chair the Heritage Railway Association, all of which is particularly relevant to my aim to ensure a successful celebration in 2025 of the 200th anniversary of the first public passenger railway in the world, the Stockton and Darlington Railway. That started the railway revolution which drove transformational economic growth and urbanisation both here and around the world. That seems to be a British achievement worth celebrating nationwide.
I referred earlier to my illustrious predecessor, the late Lord Ashfield. His record at London Transport is never likely to be equalled, and certainly not by me. However, he made but one speech in this House in the 28 years he was a Member. Despite my present, virtually full-time role as the chair of Network Rail, I hope to do better than that, and I look forward to contributing to your Lordships’ debates in the future.

Baroness Grey-Thompson: My Lords, your Lordships might normally expect me to speak in a debate on the Barnett formula, but when I realised that my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill was giving his maiden speech tonight, I immediately put my name down. It is a great privilege to follow my noble friend; I very much enjoyed listening to him speak, and I look forward to his contributions on many areas which I also care about.
It was wonderful to hear about my noble friend’s passion for public transport, which I also share. I am sorry to say that I have never had the chance to drive a London bus, but maybe this is my chance to put in a bid to do so. Due to my board membership of Transport for London, where my noble friend was the commissioner, I have worked on a gate line at London Bridge Tube station and made platform announcements—they let me do it only for a few hours, but I learned a lot along the way.
I would like to go back a little further to when I first met my noble friend. We were both at an event in the lead-up to the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Fairly quickly, we started talking about accessible transport. He asked me whether I had ever been on a bus. I replied that I had not as I did not think they were accessible. I knew that my noble friend was involved in transport, but I am not sure that at that point I realised he was the commissioner. Once I realised that he was in charge of transport in London, I was more than happy to be proved wrong about access and I have been a bus traveller ever since. His knowledge of bus routes and their numbers is second to none and is better than any website or app I have ever found.
I would also like to echo other noble Lords’ thoughts on the leadership he showed up to and beyond the 2012 Games. The fact the public transport system worked so well in 2012 was one of the things that significantly contributed to the success of the Games. I was also privileged to work with my noble friend at the London Legacy Development Corporation, which is incredible. It shows that Britain can win, design, build and do legacy really well on big projects—as long as it has the vision. He now has a role at Network Rail—I am sure that Network Rail hears from me  slightly more than it would often want to. My noble friend’s support for disabled people travelling on public transport is very welcome.
When I first came to your Lordships’ Chamber, I was given some very welcome advice, which was to come into the Chamber and sit and listen. I remember an early debate that I came into; it is fair to say it was quite technical, about the Barnett formula. When I left the Chamber and went through Central Lobby, I met a member of the public who had come to listen. He stopped me and slightly harangued me about one particular Member who had such strong views on it. I am very happy to say that it was Lord Barnett himself, so he was quite within his rights to have strong views.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, gave a very eloquent speech. As someone who was born in Wales, works in Wales and lives in the north-east of England—actually, I live on the Stockton and Darlington line in a train station—I believe that maybe it is time that we think differently about what we do.
I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Hendy raised HS2. It would be remiss of me not to highlight my wish for greater accessibility on trains and other modes of public transport and perhaps some of the missed opportunities we might be seeing to make HS2 step free. I know that it is not necessarily part of this debate, but we need to think about what more we can do with HS2 in terms of opening it up. Modelling from WPI Economics shows that inclusive transport brings significant advantages. A fully accessible network could help some of the 51,000 individuals with work-limiting disabilities to find employment, even more so and more importantly with the Government’s proposal to change the work capability assessment process.
HS2 is not cheap but, through many conversations with my noble friend, he has convinced me that it is the right thing to do. Rethinking how it will work could have a positive, tangible effect on the Treasury’s finances. A step-free rail network could deliver £450 million into the coffers of the Exchequer and produce an economic output boost of around £1.3 billion—all a valuable contribution.
This might be the last time I take part in a debate on the Barnett formula. After listening to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, maybe in future we could be talking about a Greenhalgh formula.

Lord Wigley: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, on his delightful maiden speech. I warmed very much when he mentioned the Barnett consequences of HS2—I will mention those in a moment. I am sure we all look forward to his future contributions to debates in this Chamber. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing this debate and giving us an opportunity from various angles to address aspects of the Barnett formula.
I am probably the only Member here who spoke in the Commons debate when the Barnett formula was introduced in 1978. I then warned that it would freeze the financial relationships between our four nations and ossify Wales into a dependency relationship in  which the consequences of historic industrial and social patterns would place high demands on healthcare and housing budgets.
In opposition, Welsh Labour MPs called for a needs- based formula to replace Barnett, but when in government they failed to deliver. That was partly, I believe, because the Chancellor and then Prime Minister Gordon Brown was a Scottish MP and feared that a needs-based formula might penalise Scotland.
When the Barnett formula was introduced in 1978, Joel Barnett proposed it as a short-term measure. Four decades later, the then Lord Barnett described its continued application as an embarrassment. Its fundamental weakness for Wales is that it takes as its starting point the situation that existed in 1978. The Government have acknowledged that the baseline for Barnett is created by “rolling forward existing spending”. That assumes that the spending in 1978 was appropriate to Wales’s needs and that no fundamental change in the relationships between Wales and England has happened since. But there has been a dramatic differential change arising from the ending of the coal industry and hugely reduced employment in steel. The formula’s other central weakness is that adjustments to the base spending levels were not needs related. Subsequent editions relate to spending levels determined by Westminster as appropriate for England.
It is fair to say that over the period from 2000 until Brexit hit home, Wales benefited from European regional and social funds. We received that aid because the per capita GDP in 15 of Wales’s 22 counties was below 75% of the EU figure. Wales was accorded European funding in 1999 because of the failure of UK economic policy to regenerate the Welsh economy. EU aid was essentially a recognition of need.
The challenge was to raise the economic activity levels, which ran at six percentage points lower than England. There is some irony that the issue of lowered economic activity levels is now being experienced in England as well. I question whether successive Labour-led Governments in Cardiff used those European resources in a strategic manner to put right the underlying weaknesses of our economy. Money was given out to support worthy projects that were welcomed in local communities but often did not address the underlying problem. EU funding was intended to address these needs-based issues. The Barnett formula does not even try to do so.
The Barnett formula was reviewed by a House of Lords Select Committee in 2009 and by the Holtham commission in 2010. Both criticised the formula, principally because it is not needs related. To highlight one aspect of its deficiency, over recent years public expenditure per capita in Wales has been very close to that of London, notwithstanding the greater needs of Wales on a host of indicators. Analysis from 2022 showed that total identifiable public expenditure per capita in 2020-21 was £14,222 in Wales and £15,490 in London. If per capita expenditure had been the same in Wales as in London, Wales would have received an extra £4 billion.
I accept that only half of government expenditure in Wales comes through the Barnett formula and the rest is direct Treasury funding for non-devolved matters. But over the Covid period, London benefited  disproportionately from central government spending, despite the costs of Covid being felt all around these islands and the health services being largely devolved.
Another glaring example relates to HS2, as we have heard. Normally, if such a project cost, say, £100 billion in England, the Barnett consequential for Wales would be about £5 billion. Instead, Wales receives nothing because HS2 is defined as an England and Wales project, despite not a single mile of it running through Wales. Will the Minister tell the House who made that decision? Not one mile of HS2 is in Wales; indeed, a KPMG study for HS2 Ltd shows that Wales would lose competitive advantage as a result of it. That report projects Scotland as gaining competitive advantage, yet Scotland gets a Barnett consequential from HS2 and Wales does not. In responding to this debate, the Minister should announce that Wales will get a full Barnett consequential from HS2, as demanded by the Conservative leader in the Senedd. If she fails to indicate government rethinking on this issue, many Tory MPs in Wales will pay the price.
In their response to the Select Committee report, Cm 7772, the Government promised to keep the operation of the Barnett formula under review. In responding to this debate, will the Minister tell the House exactly when it was last reviewed, what material evidence arose from any such review and when it was published?
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, at Question Time on 18 January, acknowledged that the Barnett formula was not serving Wales well and called for it to be scrapped and replaced by a needs-based formula. The Minister has repeatedly said, in this Chamber on 18 January and again this afternoon, that the Government have responded to the demands of the Holtham commission that Welsh funding should be decided on a needs basis. I say here, as emphatically as I can, that they have not.
The Holtham report contained three core demands. The first was to establish a Barnett floor to stop the ongoing systematic convergence of the Welsh allocation per capita with that of England. It would, in Holtham’s words, prevent even further underfunding of public services in Wales.

Lord Harlech: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord—

Lord Wigley: I am winding up now. As I was saying, it does not do anything to put right the level of underfunding that Wales has systematically suffered and that is built into the present settlement. That is why Holtham recommended, crucially, that Barnett be replaced by a “needs-based” methodology to get financial provision in line with Wales’s needs. Please will the Minister confirm that case?

Baroness Chapman of Darlington: My Lords, it is a real pleasure to take part in this debate. I too live on the Darlington-Stockton railway line in Darlington. We are very proud of our railway heritage, and we are looking forward to the centenary in 2025, when we will celebrate our fine contribution to the railway infrastructure of the world, all starting in Darlington.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on securing this debate, which is timely, given today’s Budget Statement and in the light of other developments, such as the UK internal market Act and the creation of a new UK subsidy control scheme, as well as the distribution and spending of levelling-up funds. We are all very interested in those issues, today especially.
As the helpful Lords Library briefing outlines, the Barnett formula is a long-running Treasury policy. It does not have a statutory underpinning, but it is very well established. I was struck by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, saying that he spoke in the debate in 1978 in which it was introduced. I doubt whether the Minister was born in 1978, which goes to highlight just how long this has been going on.
As someone who lives in the north-east and is married to a Welsh MP, I am very familiar with the sense of grievance that exists around the current situation. We know that various complaints are levelled against the Barnett formula, and the Government should engage positively with those debates and attempt to move this forward. Of course, the formula is not the only way in which the Government claim to be closing disparities between the nations and regions of the UK. The levelling-up fund is, contrary to initial expectations, allocated by Westminster rather than being devolved. That has raised questions, particularly from the Welsh Government, and I hope that the Minister can address those concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, spoke about setting regions and councils free. Obviously, everyone would like to see that, but I gently point out that it is quite difficult to be free when you are tied up in spending thousands of pounds, if not more, which you would like to spend on services, bidding for various funds to help you grow and regenerate your area as you would like to do.
Concerns have been raised about the use of the levelling-up fund, and there have been plenty of accusations of funds being given to certain local authorities for perhaps more political purposes rather than on the basis of need. We on these Benches are deeply concerned about that and support the prioritisation of need in allocation of funds. In recent weeks there have also been reports of significant sums being allocated but not actually being spent, which suggests that the system is not functioning as well as intended and that some funds might have been better spent in other parts of the UK.
Alongside Barnett and levelling-up funding, there is also of course the question of the UK shared prosperity fund, which is coming on stream to replace EU regional development funds—I think the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to this as well. The UK shared prosperity fund has identified geographical areas in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the formula used is different to Barnett and the precise forms of support for each part of the UK seem to differ, as does the nature of the interaction between Whitehall and the devolved Administrations.
I also recognise and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, on his maiden speech. As someone with great experience at the top of FirstGroup, Transport for London and Network Rail, he has a solid track record of overseeing public spending  on infrastructure projects, and we all look forward to benefiting for years to come from that insight and experience, and we welcome him here. I especially congratulate him on including Darlington in his maiden speech and encourage him to continue to do so throughout his many years and contributions in this place.

Baroness Penn: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for the timeliness of this debate and add words of welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. As we have heard, he brings a plethora of experience to this House, not least through his efforts to increase union connectivity, which, as the noble Lord noted, the Government are considering carefully. I look forward to working with him in the future.
As was reflected in my right honourable friend the Chancellor’s Budget today, the Government are committed to delivering growth and prosperity across all four nations of our United Kingdom and all regions within it. The Budget will rightly be debated in its own right by this House tomorrow, but I want to highlight that it is a Budget that delivers for the union, both through UK government support for all parts of the UK and through providing further additional funding to the devolved Administrations. The Spring Budget ensures that the benefits of economic growth are felt everywhere; promotes the conditions for enterprise to succeed; encourages the inactive back into employment; and continues to provide support with the cost of living to people across the United Kingdom.
As we heard earlier today, the spending review 2021 set the largest annual block grants, in real terms, of any spending review settlement since the devolution Acts. On top of this, the devolved Administrations received £3.4 billion of extra funding at the Autumn Statement and, as a result of decisions at the Spring Budget, are now receiving an extra £630 million in additional funding over the next two years through the Barnett formula, which we are here to discuss today.
The Government’s commitment to investing in our union should be in no doubt. However, it is helpful on Budget Day to reflect on the fiscal settlement that we have across all four nations and on how decisions such as those taken today flow through to the finances of the devolved Governments, including through the use of the Barnett formula.
As many noble Lords noted, the Barnett formula is long-standing, having been introduced in 1978—which is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, noted, before my time. It is transparent and open to scrutiny. It is consistent with the principles set out in the Statement of Funding Policy document, playing a key role in pooling and sharing resources so all parts of the United Kingdom receive a secure and stable level of funding for public services.
As noble Lords noted, the formula determines changes to devolved Administration funding in relation to changes in UK government funding and works by multiplying the change in UK government funding by two figures: a population share and a comparability factor, which measures the extent to which a UK government service is devolved.
The formula serves to ensure that any changes to funding are, per person, broadly the same across the United Kingdom. These changes are then added to devolved Administrations’ existing funding, which is much higher per person than equivalent UK Government spending, broadly reflecting that needs are higher in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The outcome is that the devolved Administrations receive more than 20% more per person than equivalent spending in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I understand that there are, on many occasions, calls to replace the Barnett formula. To answer those calls honestly, it is important to acknowledge that the formula is not perfect, but all allocation systems have strengths and weaknesses, and we do not need to replace the Barnett formula to make meaningful improvements in the way in which devolved Administrations are funded. Indeed, that picture has not remained static since the formula was introduced in the 1970s: significant changes have been made since then.
The devolved Administrations have agreed tax powers so they can increase their funding. They have control of local taxation, such as business rates and council tax. They also have agreed borrowing powers, as well as flexibility to move funding between years. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the question of needs-based funding—not just looking across the nations of the United Kingdom but across our regions as well and how funding is allocated within England. I am sure the noble Lord will know that many different formulas contribute to the distribution of funding within England. Many of them take needs factors into account. To answer him, as he gave me the option to do this, I think it would be best if I wrote out to those who have attended the debate today on the approach to needs-based funding in England.
As for needs-based funding and the Barnett formula, I recognise that it is not directly needs based in Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, the higher levels of funding they get reflect the greater needs in those areas. In Wales, raised specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, although we did not take forward all the recommendations of the Holtham commission, very importantly, we have introduced a needs-based floor into the Barnett formula to ensure that that is taken into account.
The latest fiscal framework agreed between the UK and the Welsh Government in 2016 added a needs-based factor into the Barnett formula to ensure that Wales receives fair funding. The Welsh Government receive at least 15% more funding per person than the equivalent United Kingdom spending in the rest of the UK, as recommended by the commission. A review of that fiscal framework is triggered when the Welsh Government premium falls below 15%. It is not below 15% at the moment; noble Lords will know that is it at 20%. This is about £1 billion more each year than the Holtham commission indicated, and the Welsh Government agreed, was fair to Wales.
There may be a question of how effectively the Welsh Government have spent their needs-based funding, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised that question about EU funding that the Welsh Government have received. The United Kingdom Government share the desire to ensure that money is spent effectively across  all parts of the UK and that devolved Governments are held to account by their electorate for how effectively they spend their money. When it comes to introducing a needs-based element into the Barnett formula, the reforms we have undertaken since the Holtham commission’s report show that you do not need to abolish the Barnett formula to improve on its work.
My noble friend Lord Greenhalgh provided a different perspective on whether we should look at needs-based funding or opportunity-based funding. He raised an interesting point and I hope he has taken heart from some of the announcements in today’s Budget. Whether it is devolution or decentralisation, there were important announcements in today’s Budget that will give more power to those who are close to their communities and have a better idea of how money should be spent in those areas.
We have agreed, subject to ratification, trail-blazer devolution deals with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and West Midlands Combined Authority. They will equip those authorities with deeper, additional policy levers to deliver on their priorities, including across local transport, skills, housing, innovation, net zero and employment. They are a big step towards what my noble friend spoke so passionately about: empowering the leaders of local areas and others to take forward the policies that will deliver for those local areas.
The Budget also provided hundreds of millions of pounds more for levelling up, including over £400 million of funding for the rollout of new levelling-up partnerships, bringing the collective power of government to provide bespoke place-based regeneration in 20 of England’s areas most in need of levelling up over 2023-24; and over £200 million for 16 local regeneration projects in places in need across England—from a skills and education campus in Blackburn, to the transformation of Ashington town centre. There have been significant moves in this Budget both to devolve power to local areas and to ensure that areas that need support from levelling-up funds get it.
It would be remiss of me to conclude this debate without addressing the point on High Speed 2. I do not think that what I will say to noble Lords is new information, but the reason why Wales does not receive a Barnett consequential on High Speed 2 spending, unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, is that rail infrastructure in Wales is a reserved matter. It is based on the devolution settlement we have and the difference in the settlements between Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is consistent with the funding arrangements for all other policy areas that are reserved in Wales but devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, such as policing.
This has been an interesting debate. As we move to further devolution, it is interesting to think about what basis that, and the funding, should be on. I am sorry that I could not more fully answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about funding in England. I hope to write to him with a very full response after this debate.

Lord Shipley: Can the Minister clarify that her letter will explain—in great detail, I hope—why, for example, the East Midlands has a lower per capita  public funding settlement than the rest of the United Kingdom? We need such examples to dig out the reasons for the differences in per capita public funding by nation and region. I hope, secondly, that the letter will also confirm my view that the levelling-up metrics which are part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill could be used as a basis for a needs analysis to allocate public spending in a new system that does not depend on the outdated Barnett formula.

Baroness Penn: My Lords, I will endeavour to provide as much detail as I can in my written response. I note the noble Lord’s desire that it address the specific points concerning the East Midlands.
When it comes to the levelling-up metrics, we will of course look at the idea put forward by the noble Lord. As someone experienced in looking at reforming funding formulas across a whole range of different public service areas, I can say that this can be extremely complicated. I know the noble Lord said that that was almost no excuse, but it is important to recognise that fact. Any such changes need to be carefully taken forward and thought through, but we will look carefully at his proposition.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
 - Committee (5th Day) (Continued)

Amendment 159

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Moved by Baroness Scott of Needham Market
159: After Clause 70, insert the following new Clause—“Councillor conduct: suspension of a parish councillor(1) The monitoring officer of a local authority in England may suspend a parish councillor where that monitoring officer has determined through an investigation that the parish councillor has breached the parish council’s code of conduct.(2) In subsection (1) a “local authority” is defined as being a—(a) district council;(b) unitary council;(c) London borough council;(d) metropolitan borough council.”Member's explanatory statementThis new Clause would introduce a new sanction of suspension to the ethical standards regime which applies to parish councils in England.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I have six amendments in the group that we have reached and they are each different in nature. While I will be as economical with my words as possible, I need to make a brief case for each of them. Collectively, they are to do with strengthening the position of town and parish councils which, we have all agreed, play an important part in our local government system. I again put on the record my interest as president of the National Association of Local Councils.
First, Amendment 159 deals with councillor conduct and the suspension of a councillor. At this level, it is true that most parish councils are very well run. The clerks, council staff and councillors all work together  very well and maintain high standards of conduct. But, sometimes, the impact of poor and disruptive behaviour by councillors, clerks and, occasionally, residents can overshadow proceedings and communities and make civic life very difficult indeed. We are concerned here with a small minority of councillors who engage in unacceptable behaviour such as harassment and bullying, including racist, sexist and ableist abuse. Such activities would be grounds for suspension and dismissal if they were in an employment setting, which is why NALC is arguing for stronger sanctions than the current ones.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life published a review in 2019 which made a number of recommendations to strengthen the current standards and conduct frame- work and the safeguards that apply to it. It argued that the sanctions currently available to local authorities are insufficient and that this lack of robust sanctions damages public confidence in the standards system and leaves local authorities with no means of enforcing lower-level sanctions or addressing serious or repeated misconduct.
Amendment 160 is on the position of those with caring responsibilities. Again, we can agree that it is essential that councils of all levels contain representatives from a wide range of circumstances and backgrounds. Underrepresentation of certain groups is very bad for democracy. NALC has carried out research that identified that an important barrier to achieving this wider representation is lack of help with the costs of dependant care. Unlike every other councillor in England and Wales, members of a parish council are specifically precluded from being able to access help with dependant care. I hope that, if the Government are setting their face against virtual meetings, they will consider the impact on this group and perhaps agree to changing the allowances situation.
Amendment 161 is around the governance review, which was a commitment in the White Paper to launch a review of neighbourhood governance in England to look at how it could be made easier for local people and community groups to come together to set local priorities and shape the future of their neighbourhoods. The review would also look at the role and functions of parish councils and, crucially, at how to make parish councils quicker and easier to establish.
Communities covering two-thirds of England’s population are being left behind in taking this community- led action because they do not have a parish council. Onward’s social fabric index shows that areas with full coverage of local councils score significantly higher than those without local councils in all the key measures of community strength. We heard earlier this evening about the considerable success of neighbourhood plans in delivering more houses rather than fewer. Partly as a result of that, in the past decade more than 300 places have created new councils in response to community demand, yet barriers still exist, which are partly lack of awareness by communities that they could have a local council, lack of support, a process which is very complicated and the attitude of some principal councils, which can be quite resistant. The Government are yet to publish any further details or timescales for taking the White Paper forward. It is a real pity that this Bill is again missing that opportunity.
Amendment 162 relates to the power to pay grants. Neither the levelling-up White Paper nor the Bill includes any reference to funding for the 10,000 parish councils in England. These councils do not currently receive government funding. Their services and activities are almost entirely funded by their small share of council tax. They do not receive revenue support grant or a share of the business rate and, despite the growing role of parish councillors in responding to the social, economic and environmental needs of their communities, they are not eligible in their own right for any of the government growth funds, such as community renewal, levelling-up, the towns fund or the UK shared prosperity fund. They are also excluded from the community ownership fund.
I agree with my colleagues, and I share the distaste for this handing out of money through central pots but, if that is the way it is going to be done, then it seems very unfair and counterproductive to exclude parish councils. They are not going to be able to play the full role they can in levelling up if they are simply funded by local residents. There are other opportunities coming up in which parish and town councils would like to participate, for example, a net-zero trail-blazer or—heaven forefend—any more national emergencies or the delivery of government priorities. This amendment would level up the list of local authorities in England to which Ministers of the Crown could pay a grant. It would provide Ministers with an additional power and flexibility and not be a requirement.
My penultimate amendment, Amendment 163, is around clarification of the legal power of parish councils to fund repairs to local churches. I will not dwell too long on this because there is Amendment 485 later in the Bill, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and others. The fundamental problem is that parishes which wish to fund local churches now find themselves with a grey area of the law. Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1894 says that parish councils cannot give funding to ecclesiastical charities, but Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 says that they can. This amendment is not saying that they should be giving grants—it is neutral on that—it is simply that parishes which might want to give a grant are deterred because the law is unclear. I should make it clear that it is not always a church building. In my parish, for example, we have no community room. The only building we have is the church room, and that is really our community centre, but the parish council does not feel it can give a grant. The advice that NALC gives to its members is that the accepted legal principle is that, when interpreting an Act of Parliament, a specific provision overrides a general one. I have a lot of detail about the legal provisions—which noble Lords will be pleased to hear I will not go into—but they certainly need to be clarified. That was held out in 2017 by The Taylor Review: Sustainability of English Churches and Cathedrals, which confirmed this confusion needs to be cleared up.
The Minister wrote to us a few weeks ago on this matter, and her letter essentially said that this would need to be taken up with the courts. I respectfully suggest that if Parliament has legislated in ways that are contradictory, it really should be for Parliament to sort it out, not the courts. In practical terms, it is absurd to think that parish councils will voluntarily take themselves to court. This is an appeal for clarity.
My final amendment is on the general power of competence—the ability to be able to do anything which is not expressly forbidden in legislation. The Bill creates this power for the new combined authorities. Other local authorities already have it, but the town and parish council tier of local government is out of step. It is only under certain quite onerous circumstances that they can have this power. Indeed, only 18% of county associations have felt confident to apply for it. To further empower communities and to ensure that local councils can play their full part, the Bill should extend this power to all parish councils. I beg to move.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I will speak specifically to Amendment 163.
I should first declare an interest that I am the high steward of Ripon Cathedral, and although Ripon is technically a city because of its cathedral, the cathedral is also regarded by many as its parish church. The crypt is the oldest built fabric of any English cathedral, and worship there has been continuous since 672. Ripon was the first place in England where the Benedictine rule was lived out. It is a grade 1 listed building. The surrounding lands are a scheduled ancient monument. However, although it is a place to encourage pilgrimage and sanctuary, it is also a space to encourage imagination, exploration and debate. It is used extensively to promote local innovation and many events, and is a space for the community of Ripon to come together. However, it needs urgent support if it is to flourish for the next 1,350 years or so.
All churches and cathedrals have a really desperate job not just trying to stay open but, in these straitened times, to be heated. They try to raise whatever money they can but tend to be fighting a losing battle, as the maintenance costs of caring for such large buildings is astronomic.
It is a complete anomaly that parish councils cannot help to support their local church or religious building if they so wish. Almost certainly it will not be a huge grant: parish councils are as bereft of money as our churches are. As we have already heard from my noble friend, the two conflicting bits of legislation pertaining here—Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1894 and Section 137(3) of the Local Government Act 1972—give rise to concerns that parishes can, if they want, grant the local church some much-needed money. What should have happened of course is that, when Section 137(3) came in, the Government of the day could have struck down Section 8, which, as we have heard, says that funds cannot be given to churches, whereas Section 137(3) says that they can. Unfortunately, this was probably overlooked at the time and now we have an opportunity for the Government to accept this wholly reasonable amendment, which will clarify matters.

Earl of Lytton: My Lords, my name is added to some of the amendments in this group, and I would like to speak very briefly to some of them. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for having introduced her amendment so eloquently.
I recognise several of these from the time when I had the privilege of being the president of the National Association of Local Councils, and of the then combined Sussex Association of Local Councils. I know just how disruptive these conflicts can be. They can be between the chairman and councillors, between other councillors, or councillors and a clerk, or it can be something that a councillor is doing externally to the work of the parish. These things do need to be dealt with, and if the monitoring officer is not in a position to call order, these things have a habit of festering. I know just how disruptive they can be to the entire process, so I support that one very much.
I support also Amendment 160 on the dependants’ carer’s allowance, and in particular the review of neighbourhood governance. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to neighbourhoods and neighbourhood planning, and I think it is a matter of vital consequence, particularly as there seems to be a certain frequency of neighbourhood plans not being respected by the principal authorities. If we do not have something that neighbourhoods feel they can really aspire to and can be made to stick, what is the motivation for them to get engaged in the first place? Are we delivering something that is really talking about communities and supporting communities in what they do and their aspirations, or is it some sort of fig leaf? I hope it is not, and I think there should be this review so that we can see where things are going. I certainly agree with the power to pay grants to parish councils. This is something that goes back a long way—several years.
I did not put my name down to one other amendment that I should have—that was Amendment 164—because the general power of competence for parish councils certainly goes back into the mists of time and was a live issue during my period as president of NALC. Again, this goes back to the question of whether parish councils can demonstrate to their councillors, for all the time and effort that they give voluntarily, and the fact that they are spending public money, that they are going to be able to drive forward their proposals within their area of competence. This is not to say they should be in conflict in any way with principal authorities, or anything like that, but, within their remit, why can they not have the general power of competence? I can see no good reason not to have it. For those reasons, I support these amendments. The only one I have not mentioned is Amendment 163, on:
“Financial assistance to church or other religious bodies”,
because I really felt I did not have the competence to make any comment on that.

Lord Blunkett: My Lords, before I speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, could I make an appeal to the usual channels that, given that there is a major problem this evening in terms of transport, we are mindful of that in terms of how long we sit? Only in this House—certainly not in the House of Commons—could we be here with the  difficulties that are experienced outside and, while I realise we have got to try and make progress on Committee, I appeal for the exercise of a degree of common sense.
In speaking to the amendments to which I have put my name, I want to make a broader point. When I was leader of the city of Sheffield, with its population of 560,000, I was not always mindful of the needs and the importance of the parish and town councils that lay to the north of the city and which had previously been in what was then the old West Riding—that is, Bradfield, Ecclesfield and the town council in Stocksbridge. It struck me much later, as a declared communitarian, that this was a big mistake. The more that we devolve and ensure that we make decisions and delegate decisions as close to people as possible, the more we will ensure that we protect and reinforce our democracy. Town and parish councils are the building blocks on which the broader decisions are taken by county and metropolitan authorities and, here in London, by the boroughs, the GLA and the mayor.
As we move to greater devolution, which was debated in the previous business this evening, we must take into account that, while elected mayors and mayoral combined authorities are the way forward in terms of infrastructure, investment and devolvement of powers from central government, this will not succeed unless people feel an affinity and are engaged with their community and neighbourhood in the cities and, in rural areas—of which I have had experience in the last 20 years—with their parish and town council.
These amendments are not just technical amendments relating to the powers that should exist with parish and town councils. They are about the reinforcement of democratic representation by local people and the investment in community facilities, including religious facilities and institutions where it is possible to define sensibly what that investment is for. I imagine that the Government will want to reflect on this. It could be in heritage. It could be, as has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, the community facility that in so many parishes and small towns across the country exists only within the local church. I did apologise to the annual conference of parish and town clerks for having been a bit centralist in the past, so I might as well put that on record tonight. A sinner who comes to understand is worth three of those who have not understood the mistakes that they have made—so there we are.
There is a very real issue here that the Government could deal with very simply and easily and, as has been described, where there are contradictory pieces of legislation—Section 137 was mentioned—we could set the record straight. We have moved on a lot since the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission’s proposals and the 1972 and 2003 Acts. Life has moved on. There is a greater consensus now about devolution and about subsidiarity—I never could say that word without losing my teeth. We have an opportunity on the levelling-up Bill, very simply and easily and without a great deal of fuss, to put this right on Report.

Lord Scriven: My Lords, I will probably upset my noble friends Lady Scott and Lady Harris when I speak to Amendment 163. There may be confusion,  but if any of the Acts should be withdrawn, it should be the 1972 Act, not the 1894 Act, for one reason of practicality and one of principle.
The matter of practicality is that the Church Commissioners, in their latest report, said that the reserves of the Church of England after its liabilities in pensions is £7.5 billion. Therefore, there are issues concerning investment in church funds or church buildings where the first port of call should be the reserves which the Church of England holds. The report goes on to say that in dioceses, the reserves are £1.6 billion, with a cash reserve of £1.84 million, and cathedrals’ general reserves are £524 million, with £50 million in cash.
The second reason is one of principle. I find it absolutely incredible and unacceptable that the Church of England—an organisation that does not see me as an equal citizen in this country, that has used discrimination and prejudice to try to deny my marriage and many other people’s marriages in this country and continues to do so, and that uses a fudge to try to hold its own organisation together rather than see equality for all in love—should be the first port of call as a matter of principle in which parish or any other councils should be able to claim off the state.
For those reasons—one of practicality, the funds that the Church holds, and one a matter of principle, which I see as a position of prejudice and discrimination held particularly by the Church of England—I feel that if any legislation should be repealed, it should be the clause in the 1972 Act and not the 1894 Act.

Lord Stunell: My Lords, I am certainly ready to respond on behalf of my Front-Bench colleague on this group, but I notice that there are two further items that it might be appropriate for me to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to address before I speak.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: We have one amendment and a stand part notice in this group. One is on whether Clause 92 should stand part of the Bill, and the other is an amendment as to whether the Crown should publish a review on whether the provisions of the Act should be extended.
Clause 92 is on the neighbourhood development plans and orders, and the basic conditions that are referred to. We have put this down because we wanted to draw attention to what we considered to be a fundamental issue with neighbourhood plans. As things stand at the moment, it is not entirely clear to us what role they play in national planning policy. We know that they are explicitly addressed in the National Planning Policy Framework, but this is only in terms of process. The way it is done is not particularly clear. On the one hand, the stated rationale of neighbourhood plans is that they give communities the power to develop a shared vision for their area, and they are legally part of development plans. On the other hand, they have to conform to local planning housing allocations, if they are still going to exist, and have regard to national planning policy, but can also be overturned when they are in conflict with either of these things. That brings about a tension and, ultimately, the question of who  makes decisions here. Is it communities or is it Ministers? This is not really resolved or clear at all. It would be helpful for the Minister to bring some clarity around that. We need clarity about the precise remit of neighbourhood plans.
More fundamentally, we also need a better sense of the function of neighbourhood planning within the wider planning system. It is critical that there is a balance between local and national planning, because we do not want to see communities disempowered and more control at the centre. I know that the Government have talked a lot about how the Bill is devolving power from the centre locally, but we feel that in many areas this is not actually what the Bill is achieving. We need to make sure that we do not lose the ability of communities to have a say in their own destinies and what their communities are going to look like. If you think about the last 10 years of Conservative Administrations, the Government have been tinkering away with the planning systems; we believe that has, to a certain extent, undermined the scope for effective local and neighbourhood planning. The Bill is an opportunity to put that right. As it stands at the moment, we think that in certain areas it does the opposite. It is about making sure that the Bill does level up, does give more power to communities and does not snatch any more back to the centre.
I give just one example of why we are particularly worried about this. The new national development management policies that the Bill provides for will take precedence over both local and neighbourhood plans where there is any kind of conflict. When the Minister responds, it would be good to hear that she appreciates the concerns I have just expressed and for her to give us confidence that the Bill will not undermine any kind of localism in the planning system. On the clauses that we are concerned about, such as Clause 92 and later when we get to the NDMPs, it would be good to hear that there will be more consideration of the impact on local decision-making.
Amendment 506 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage concerns
“whether the provisions of this act should be extended in relation to parish councils and town councils in England, and community councils in Wales and Scotland.”
We have had a pretty big debate about parish and town councils so I will not go into any detail on them now; I think the Minister has a fairly clear idea of why we are saying this. I do not think the Bill goes far enough to empower and involve communities in the devolution proposals that we have been debating.
I will speak briefly on some of the other amendments introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. Again, many of them are really important. I particularly want to say how much we support Amendment 160—as the noble Baroness said, this feeds back to our previous debate—on the dependant carers’ allowance for parish councillors. This is important. I do not understand why parish councils could not have been added to the list of local authorities in England that can have a scheme to provide for the payment to members if they have caring responsibilities. It could help with the expense of arranging childcare, for example, or of having someone come in to sit with an elderly relative while the carer attends a meeting.  It seems a sensible, practical way of supporting councillors who have caring duties to take a greater role and encouraging people with caring responsibilities to take part in their local communities.
I also think that the noble Baroness’s Amendment 161, on neighbourhood governance, is something that we need to look at. It makes absolute sense for the Secretary of State to have to
“undertake a review of neighbourhood governance in England.”
Again, in looking at levelling up, that is about empowering communities; it is all part of the same picture, as far as I can see. The noble Baroness referred to the 2017 Taylor review. As she said, it confirmed that there is considerable confusion about what Section 8 of the 1894 Act actually means; again, we will come on to churches and what it means for them. Whether you agree with it or not, this is about updating legislation so that everybody better understands what it means. At the moment, better clarification is needed. One of the points that has been made on this by the National Association of Local Councils is that there is no current case law to resolve the question of whether that Act in fact overrides these provisions. To me, it just makes sense to have a review as it is a very old piece of legislation.
We very much support the noble Baroness’s Amendment 164 on the general power of competence. Communities need power and influence to tackle the issues that matter most to local people, allowing them to shape the delivery of public services in their area and, ultimately, to deliver the kind of community in which they want to live and be part of. Again, we think that it is an important amendment.
My noble friend Lord Blunkett said, quite rightly, that this group of amendments is important for how local democracy is supported and developed as we go forward. I hope that the Minister and the Government will look kindly on the amendments, the spirit of what they are trying to achieve and the support they are trying to give local communities and parish councils. If you are genuine about levelling up, these sorts of amendments can actually make quite a big difference in their own way. I hope that she will have time to take this back to her department to look at in more detail.
Finally, it was very good to learn that my noble friend Lord Blunkett has recognised the error of his ways in making things more centralised, and I hope that the Government will learn from his approach.

Lord Stunell: My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to the community of the saved. The amendments on parish councils find favour with our Front Bench. I will not go into great detail on them. I hope that, if we are quick on this group of amendments, the Government will give us a break afterwards.
On the standards proposed by Amendment 159, I say that I was a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when we carried out our inquiry on the state of the health of democracy in local councils. There was a quite clear gap, and our recommendations were very clear about what should be done. It is disappointing that the Government, initially at least, responded that they were not going to  take any action. I hope that they will now take some action, not least because of the high-profile cases which came to light during the pandemic lockdown.
We support Amendments 160 and 161; the review of parishes is certainly well overdue. The capacity of parishes to do things was much tested during Covid. Most parishes proved up to the task, but the government system of emergency funding was denied to them; had it been available, it would have been helpful to their communities. I would have thought that the Government might want to have this reserve power in their pocket for a future occasion, even if they are convinced that they do not need to apply it immediately.
I did not know how controversial grants by parish councils would prove to be in the debate. I just add that the Church of England is not the only religious body in England, and certainly not the only religious body which supplies and helps its community and which parishes might well want to support and enable. I am quite sure that we need to get past this particular roadblock and just make parishes able to take their own decision about whether a particular body and a particular cause does or does not justify the use of taxpayers’ and parish money to carry out duties of one sort or another. The power of general competence is of course part of capacity raising, all of which is about levelling up by making parish councils effective voices in their community and enabling them to do things; it is empowerment.
The Government have focused on things which some of us think are completely misplaced or very trivial—the subject of street names springs to my mind. However, on things which are much more important and significant, they seem to have been a little blind, so I hope that they will respond to the debate in a very positive way.
On the question of Clause 92 standing part of the Bill, I hope that I do not understand the clause properly, because it seems to say that neighbourhood plans will be fine from now on, but only as long as they reach a minimum standard set by the Government in terms of housing supply.
I said in an earlier debate that neighbourhood plans had been remarkably successful in allocating more land for housing than the local plans that they superseded, on average. Obviously, of the roughly 3,000 that have been approved, not every one has provided more housing—some have provided less—but, on average, they have provided more. They are a vehicle for overcoming the terrible tension in a planning system in which the developer develops and the community opposes. They were designed to turn it around, so that the community proposes and the developer develops. That is how you get more homes; if you try to bulldoze it through the community, at whatever level, you will slow the process down. Neighbourhood planning has shown that you can speed it up and get more homes.
Now we have a wrecking clause which will say to every neighbourhood forum—I should have declared that I am a member of one, which is about to present its plan to the community—“We’d like to know what you’d like to do with your community, but you’ve got to do it this way.” That is not neighbourhood planning.  We should scrap it. I would not have got involved in a neighbourhood forum if I thought that the constraints were that I would have to come out with the answer that the Government had first thought of. That is the whole point of putting decision-making in the hands of the neighbourhood forum or parish council. The neighbourhood plan in my area is being developed not by a parish council but by a free-standing neighbourhood forum in an unparished area.
I entirely endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said about the tension—if not outright conflict—between the different layers of planning and what takes priority over what. I have an amendment later on to say that, if this way forward is adopted, we should make an exception for those neighbourhood plans that are in the process of being signed off in referendums and endorsed by their district councils. If the Government insist that those which are 99% finished have to go back and be ripped up because Clause 92 and the national development management plans take priority, they will completely crush the neighbourhood plan movement and undo all the good work they have done so far.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, before I respond to the amendments in this group, I want to say that the Government recognise that parish councils have an important role in improving the quality of life and well-being of their communities. They have a close understanding of what their communities want and can design and procure the services which best meet those needs. They are vital to levelling up. I just wanted to add that before turning to these amendments covering parishes and neighbourhoods.
On Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, the fact that there is no provision in current legislation for a sanction to suspend a councillor was a deliberate policy decision at the time of the Localism Act 2011 to differentiate it from the previous Standards Board regime. That regime was considered to have allowed politically motivated and vexatious complaints. The Government’s position on this remains substantially unchanged, as referenced in our response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s review of local government ethical standards.
This clause to suspend a parish councillor found to have breached their code of conduct would introduce inconsistency in the local authority standards regime across the other tiers of local government. On the rare occasions when councillors display poor behaviour, local authorities have options to issue sanctions on parish councillors. Councillors can be barred from committees or representative roles and may be publicly criticised.
I turn to Amendment 160, also tabled by the noble Baroness. This Government are keen to ensure that local communities are well represented in local authorities and that all levels of local government are supported to create thriving local democracies. While I thank her for raising this amendment, it would result in unknown but likely significant costs and pressures on the modest finances of many parish councils. For that reason, the Government resist the amendment.
Turning to Amendment 161, tabled by the noble Baroness, as set out in the levelling-up White Paper the Government are committed to undertaking the neighbourhood governance review as one of the six drivers of levelling up. The review will make it easier for local people and community groups to come together to set local priorities and shape the future of their neighbourhoods. The Government are taking the appropriate steps to deliver the review within the next financial year, 2023-24, and will ensure that a programme with a bold new approach to community empowerment is put in place. The success of this will require the collaboration of all partners in local government and civil society, as well as central government.
Turning to Amendment 162, tabled by the noble Baroness, the Government recognise the important role that town and parish councils play in their communities. Parish councils have the power to raise funds through precept, which they can ask their local billing authority to collect through the council tax system. There are around 10,000 parish councils in England, and I am sure noble Lords will agree that it would be disproportionately bureaucratic for central government to give funding to all of them directly. It is much better for them to raise that funding locally, according to the needs of their local communities. As for bids for certain grants, PCs can always work with other local authorities and their partners in an area for funds, including such funds as the LURB’s.
Amendment 163 is important to government. The intention of the Local Government Act 1894 was to provide a clear separation between parochial church councils and the newly created civil parishes. While it does not allow parish councils directly to contribute to the maintaining or improving of church buildings, other powers, as has been said, such as the Local Government Act 1972, allow parish councils to contribute to the upkeep of such buildings if it is deemed to be in their local communities’ interest. Section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 enables parish councils to provide assistance in respect of buildings used for public meetings or for recreational facilities.
We are aware that there are different interpretations of the laws surrounding this issue which have not been tested in the courts. As independent bodies, it is for parishes to decide what works best for them in their local communities and to ensure they act within the relevant legislation, taking legal advice where appropriate. If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I will not go further into this issue at this time because I look forward to debating it much more fully when the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol are before the Committee. For the time being, however, I note the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Turning to Amendment 164, tabled by the noble Baroness, the definition in the Localism Act 2011 of local authorities covers a parish council and enables such a council to do anything an individual might do, apart from that which is prohibited, obviously. The intention of the 2011 Act is to give local authorities  confidence in their legal capacity to act for both their communities and in their own financial interests, in addition to providing them with more freedoms to innovate and work with others to run services and manage assets for the benefit of the local communities they serve. Parish councils vary in their ability and capacity to take on the enhanced roles and responsibilities of an authority with the general power of competence.
To make it clear to noble Lords, the general power of competence includes the council clerk having completed a course in local administration and two-thirds of the councillors having been elected. These are not easy things, they but are sensible when it comes to a general power of competence. The 2011 Act therefore makes extension of powers to parish councils conditional.
Regarding the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, about Clause 92, before a neighbourhood plan or development order can be put to a referendum, the local planning authority must be satisfied that it complies with certain legislative tests known as “basic conditions”. The purpose of Clause 92 is to update the existing list of basic conditions to ensure that neighbourhood development plans and orders complement the reforms to the wider development plans framework and meet future environmental assessment requirements.
More broadly, and to make the position clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and others, the Bill will strengthen neighbourhood planning. In future, decisions on planning applications will be able to depart from plans, including neighbourhood plans, only if there is a strong reason to do so. In addition to neighbourhood plans, as we have heard, communities will also be able to prepare neighbourhood priority statements, making it easier and quicker for them to determine the priorities and preferences for their local areas. These will feed into the local plan process and the local planning authority will also be required to consider them.
Clause 92(1) removes the historic inclusion of paragraph (e) under paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which stated that a neighbourhood development order must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the local authority’s development plan. It replaces paragraph (e) with paragraph (ea), which makes it clear that a neighbourhood development order cannot prevent housing development taking place in a location that has been proposed within the local authority’s development plan.
Clause 92(1) also introduces paragraph (fa) under paragraph (f) of paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act. This requires that neighbourhood development plans and orders comply with the environmental outcomes report framework that the Bill is introducing to replace the EU processes of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment.
In addition, Clause 92(2) introduces a new basic condition for neighbourhood plans, which sets out that they must not result in the development plan for the area proposing less housing development than would have occurred if the neighbourhood plan were not being made.

Lord Stunell: I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. It is certainly helpful as far as the first parts of Clause 92 are concerned, but new paragraph (ea) is precisely the point I was raising: it requires a neighbourhood plan not to reduce housing allocation compared to the local plan, which is the current context. Bearing in mind that quite a few neighbourhood plans are being made in areas that do not have local plans, that raises another question, which we will park for the moment. If you put that floor at the level at which neighbourhood plans have to perform—in other words, you want everything to be above average compared to what we have now—does the noble Baroness not see that it undermines the flexibility that is the strength of neighbourhood plans?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: No, I do not. One of the main issues that this or any Government will face is building houses, and allowing a neighbourhood plan to deliver fewer houses than a local plan is not acceptable.
On Amendment 506, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the Government recognise the important role that parish councils play in improving the quality of life and well-being of their communities, which are at the heart of the Government’s six drivers of levelling up. The Government believe that the current provisions are adequate in addressing issues faced by the sector. These provisions provide tools and flexibilities to allow town and parish councils in England to adapt to local needs and circumstances. In Scotland and Wales, the devolved Governments also already have the tools to conduct a review of the provisions in this Bill and to make changes in relation to community councils. Noble Lords will agree that it is important for local people and community groups to come together to set local priorities and directions. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate today, and I am particularly grateful to both Front Benches on this side for their support—and particular thanks  go to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for having the courage to stand up and admit that he was wrong. For a brief moment, when the Minister started to say such warm and wonderful things about the town and parish council sector, my hopes started to rise—but they were sadly and very quickly dashed.
I am bitterly disappointed about the carer’s allowance. Having set their face against allowing virtual meetings, it feels particularly cruel for the Government not to allow town and parish councils to make a decision for themselves as to whether they would like to pay a dependant carer’s allowance. That feels to me quite petty and rather indicative of a mindset that says, “We want to try and devolve, but actually not really if you’re going to do something we don’t like”.
The governance review will be welcome if it takes place in the next year, but we have been waiting a long time for this. It was promised in the White Paper, and it is again disappointing that we will have to go through this process—and then, if there is legislation, they will have to find time for another Bill. It is such a pity that this opportunity was lost.
Finally, on being able to bid for grants, I gently remind the Minister that there are many large town councils that are significantly bigger than district councils, and they are getting grants while the towns are not. So the idea that there are too many of them and they are all too small really does not hold. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 159 withdrawn.
Amendments 160 to 164 not moved.
Clause 71 agreed.

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: Given the lateness of the hour, with the usual channels we have decided that, because of the train strike, now would be a good time to break off from Committee.
House resumed.
House adjourned at 9.33 pm.